ML20039A947
| ML20039A947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1981 |
| From: | Berkowitz S ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING, INC. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-6854 NUREG-CR-2337, NUREG-CR-2337-V03, NUREG-CR-2337-V3, NUDOCS 8112220044 | |
| Download: ML20039A947 (175) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- NUREG/CR-2337 ' Vol. 3 quatic Impacts from Operation Three Midwestern Nuclear awer Stations g?'" % ane Arnold Energy Center, Unit No.1 efk?$i4 Og y"
'ironmental Appraisal Report gga
@ j 7 2
ny
%w/jQi\-
.,/
Bred by S. P. BerF.owitz honmental Science and Engineering, Inc. Grad for l Nuclear Regulatory mission l i i 1 l l
!!AfE8824!$$$331 p
0 PDR
NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. Available from GP0 Sales Program Division of Technical Information and Document Control V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Printed copy price: $6.50 and National Technical Information Service Springfield, Vircinia 22161
NUREG/CR-2337 Vol. 3 ! i
- = = - - ; -_:=__
- -_- : ===
Aquatic Impacts from Operation of Three Midwestern Nuclear Power Stations Duane Arnold Energy Center, Unit No.1 Environmental Appraisal Report Minuscript Completed: August 1981 D:te Published: November 1981 Prepared by S. P. Berkowitz Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. P. o. Box ESE Gainesville, FL 32601 Prep; red for Divi 21:n of Engineering Offics of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W shington, D.C. 20565 NRC FIN B6854 (
I i 4 Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street., N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555
- 3. The National Technicallnformation Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that fo?!ows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Pro-gram: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regula tions, and Nuclear Regula tory Commission Issuances. Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commis-sion, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Documents avaliable from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periocical articles, transactions, and codes and standards. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries. Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference pro-ceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited. Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tecnnicallnfor-mation and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. 1 _,~
- --,_._3_, _ - - . _ p, ,yer ,-, ,_ , , , , _,
i ABSTRACT Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) is located on the west bank of the Cedar River in Linn County, Iowa. The station utilizes a boiling-water reactor and steam turbine gener-*or to produce 569 MW (net) of electrical power. Forced-draft evaporative cooling towers are used to dissipate waste heat. The closed-cycle cooling system uses a net volume of 7,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of Cedar River water. An average of 4,000 gpm is discharged into the river. It does not appear that any major, long-term changes in populations of phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, or fish have occurred as the result of station operations. The blowdown discharge from DAEC does not stretch across the width of the Cedar River, and therefore does not form a barrier to fish movement. There were indications that carp and carpsuckers may concentrate near the discharge daring the fall. It appears that only a small fraction of Cedar River fish eggs and larvae is entrained by DAEC. An average of 402 fish per year was impinged by DAEC from 1975 to 1980. I 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND
l-1 1.2 APPROACH AND RATIONALE 1-2 1.3 DOCUMENTATION FORMAT 1-4 2.0 STATION DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2-1 2.2 PLANT WATER USE AND COOLING SYSTEM 2-1 2.2.1 Plant Water Use 2-1 2.2.2 Cooling Water System 2-3 2.3 INTAKE AND DISCHARGE SYSTEM 2-5 2.3.1 Intake Structure 2-5 2.3.2 Discharge System 2-7 2.4 STATION ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 2-8 2.4.1 Environmental Protection Conditions 2-8 2.4.2 Monitoring Requirements 2-8 2.4.3 Environmental Surveillance and Special Studies 2-9 2.5 NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS 2-10 2.6
SUMMARY
OF STATION DESCRIPTION 2-11 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3-1 3.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE 3-1 3.1.1 Potential Direct Ef fects 3-1 3.1.1.1 Thermal Tolerance and Threshold 3-1 3.1.1.2 Plant Shutdown 3-2 3.1.1.3 Impingement 3-2 3.1.1.4 Entrainment 3-3 3.1.1.5 Chlorination 3-3 3.1.2 Potential Indirect Effects 3-3 i V ) l I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued, Page 2 of 2) Section Page 3.2 PREOPERATIONAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PROJECTIONS 3-4 3.2.) Thermal Discharges 3-5 3.2.2 Entrainment and Impingement 3-9 3.2.3 Chemical Effluents 3-9 3.3 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 3-12 3.3.1 Discharge Impacts 3-13 3.3.2 Entrainment and Impingement 3-16 3.4 EVALUATION OF OBSERVED IMPACTS 3-18 3.4.1 Discharge Impacts 3-18 3.4.1.1 Phytoplankton and Periphyton 3-18 3.4.1.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 3-24 3.4.1.3 Fish 3-32 3.4.2 Entrainment 3-44 3.4.3 Impingement 3-49 3.4.4 Fish Cage Studies 3-52 4.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 4-1 REFE RENCES 1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A--NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (1974) A-1 APPENDIX B--NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (1980) B-1 APPENDIX C--NPDES PERMIT C-1 APPENDIX D--LIST OF SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF FISHES COLLECTED MEAR DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER D-1 i I vi
i LIST JF TABLES i Table Page 3-1 Total Plankton Abundance (No./ml) in Cedar River, Upstream (Location 2) and Downstream (Location 3) from Duane Arnold Ena gy Center, 1973 to 1980 3-20 3-2 Periphyton Biomass Data (Grams Ash-Free Dry Weight / Area Slide) from Cedar River Upstream and Downstream from Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1975 to 1980 3-23 3-3 Macroinvertebrate Abundances from Ponar Samples Taken Upstream (Location 2) and Downstream (Location 3) frem Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1974 to 1980 3-26 3-4 Macroinvertebrate Abundances from Hester-Dendy Samplers placed Upstream (Location 2) and Downstream (Location 3) from Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1979 to 1980 3-31 3-5 Numbers and Percent Abundance of Fishes Collected by . Electroshocking Upstream (Location 2) and Down=tream (Location 3) from Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1971 to 1980 3-34 3-6 Numbers and Percent Abundance of Fishes Collected by Baited Hoop Nets Upstream (Location 2) and Downstream (Location 3) from Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1971 to 1980 3-38 3-7 Numbers and Percent Abundance of Fishes Collected by Seines Upstream (Location 2) and Downstream (Location 3) from Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1971 to 1980 3-42 3-8 Abundances (No./m 3 ) of Zooplankton Collected by Kemmerer Sampler (1974) and Plankton Nets (1975 to 1980) in Front of the Intake at Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1974 to 1980 3-47 3-9 Numbers of Fish and Other Organisms Impinged at Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1974 to 1980, as Collected by Station Personnel and Environmental Consultants 3-50 vii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued, Page 2 of 2) Table page 3-10 Daily Numbers of Fish Impinged at Duane Arnold Energy Center, January to December 1979 3-53 3-11 Daily Numbers of Fish Impinged at Duane Arnold Energy Center, January to December 1980 3-54 3-12 Results of Fish Cage Studies in Cedar River and Discharge Canal of Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1974 to 1980 3-56 h viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Location Map: Duane Arnold Energy Center 2-2 2-2 Intake and Discharge Structures for Duane Arnold Energy Center 2-4 2-3 Weir and Barrier Arrangement on Cedar River 2-6 3-1 Surface Temperature-Rise Isotherms 3-14 3-2 Vertical Temperature-Rise Isotherms 3-15 3-3 Map Locating Duane Arnold Energy Center Aquatic Sampling Locations 3-17 l ix P
I d v 4 I I
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS 1 1 .f 4 I e
l
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) is located on the west bank of the Cedar River in Linn County, Iowa. The station utilizes a boiling-water reactor and steam turbine generator to produce 569 MW (net) of elec-trical power. Forced-draf t evaporative cooling towers are used to dis-sipate waste heat. A total of 11,000 g tllons per minute (gpm) of Cedar River water is pumped into the closed-cycle cooling system. A net volume of 7,000 gpm is evaporated from the cooling towers, and an average of 4,000 gpm is discharged into the river. l Based on the available discrete data sets, it does not appear that any j major, long-term changes in populations of phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, or fish have occurred as the result of station operations. An average of 402 fish per year was impinged on the traveling scre6ns between 1975 and 1980. Based on quarterly 24-hour trash basket counts, most of the impinged individuals were channel catfish. A total of 3 fish eggs and 13 fish larvae were collected during entrainment studies from 1974 to 1980. Eleven of the larvae were suckers of one or more species. The blowdown discharge from DAEC does not stretch across the width of the Cedar River, and therefore, does not form a barrier to fish movement. There were indications that carp and carpsuckers may concentrate near the discharge during the fall. Studies on cold shock effects were not conducted in the winter, however, fish attraction to the heated discharge is anticipated. i 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (IELPCo) was granted Operating License DPR-49 for Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Unit 1 by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (now the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]) on February 22, 1974. The center is operated jointly by IELPCo, Corn Belt Power Cooperative, and Central Iowa Power Coo perat ive. The Environmental Technical Specifications (ETSs) are contained in Appendix B to the operating license. The ETSs set forth, in the nonradiological sections, limitations on plant operations applicable to the condenser cooling water discharge temperature and chemical composition and intake characteristics. The DAEC ETSs can be divided into three major categories:
- 1. Environmental Protection Conditions--These conditions deal with the cooling water discharge temperature and chemical releases.
- 2. Monitoring Requirements--These requirements include monitoring discharge temperature, ambient river temperature, and chemical properties of the discharge.
- 3. Environmental Surveillance and Special Studies--This program monitors the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics in the Cedar River. The program also evaluates the ef fects of plant operations on the aquatic ecosystem.
The objectives of the ETSs are to:
- 1. Protect the aquatic community of the Cedar River in the vicin-ity of DAEC from being exposed to excessively high temperature or to a sudden change in water temperature;
- 2. Assure that chemical discharges from the station do not have adverse impacts on the Cedar River aquat ic connunity; and
- 3. Evaluate the loss of aquatic life attributed to plant cooling water intake.
1-1 ! l
I These three major programs have been in operation since 1974, when DAEC began generating electric power. Since it has been customary to conduct study and evaluation programs for a minimum of 5 years, it is appropri-ate at this time to evaluate intake and discharge impacts and to compare , the magnitude of these impacts to preoperational predictions. The contents of this document generally follow a standard scientific approach and are arranged so that these contents adequately address questions on probable plant impacts on near-field and far-field aquatic connunities of the Cedar River. The information contained herein includes, but is no t limited to:
- 1. Documents submitted by IELPCo to NRC;
- 2. Data obtained from the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ);
- 3. Data obtained from the Iowa State Conservation Commission (SCC);
- 4. Data obtained from published literature;
- 5. Results of a meeting held at DAEC in February 1981, and obser-vations made during a station visit;
- 6. Results of telephone interviews with staff of the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA); and
- 7. Other pertinent data sources.
1.2 APPROACH AND RATIONALE DAEC began supplying power to the Iowa Power Pool on May 19, 1974. IELPCo began monitoring the preoperational aquatic communities in 1971. Data collected during the 1971 to 1980 period are considered the primary source of information upon which conclusions in this document were reached, both for preoperational (1971 to 1973) and operational (1974 to 1980) monitoring. Independent calculations and other sources of infor-mation were also used. Additional information was gained from visiting the site and the surrounding area. l i 1-2 1
1 Based on available data and the results of interviews, the discharge of heated effluents into the Cedar River from DAEC has occurred for a sufficient time to allow postoperational impact evaluation. Similarly, data collected on entrainment and impingement (plankton, fish, fish larvae, and fish eggs), although inconsistently collected, were adequate to address the question of the type and magnitude of aquatic life lost to plant intake. The rationale and approach used in this document for demonstrating the type, magnitude, and duration of the station's impacts are based on the following criteria:1,2 1
- 1. Redection of successful completion of the life history of indigenous species;
- 2. Substantial reduction of community heterogeneity or trophic structure;
- 3. Substantial increases in abundance and/or distribution of nuisance species;
- 4. Changes in community structure to resemble a simple succes-sional stage rather than the naturally occurring changes;
- 5. Elimination of species of potential economic (commercial) and/or recreational value;
- 6. Relation of plant water intake location, depth of intake, water velocity, and screen design to the existing aquatic community;
- 7. Changes in aesthetic appearance, odor, or taste of the receiving waters; and
- 8. Presence (or absence) of prior appreciable harm (before plant operation) to the balanced indigenous community in the vicinity of the plant.
The Cedar River is the largest tributary of the Iowa River; these rivers, as well as other rivers in the midwest, are nutrient-rich streams whose limnology is greatly influenced by agricultural activities and hydrological conditions in the drainage basin, as well as discharges from municipalities and industries. DAEC is about 35 miles downstream l 1-3
i 4 N from the Cedar Falls-Waterloo Sewage outfall, far enough away so that any effects are of secondary importance compared to agricultural runoff.3 There are 15 low-head dams on streams within the Cedar River basin, 12 of which are located upstream of the plant site. Of these 12, 7 are actually located on the Cedar River and 5 are located on tributary , s tre ams. The dams all have small impoundments and are not used for 1
; stream flow regulation. The Cedar River in the area of the site is classified by the Iowa Water Pollution Control Commission (IWPCC) as a warm water area.3 For purposes of this report, it is assumed that prior to plant operation, there was a relatively stable (balanced) indigenous aquatic community in the vicinity of DAEC.
1.3 DOCUMENTATION FORMAT j This document provides specific information required by NRC for environ-mental appraisal and/or possible regulatory action, which is dependent i on the outcome of each of the monitoring programs conducted at DAEC during the plant's operational period. Section 1.0 of this document provides the approach, rationale, and basic for using the type of analysis adopted in production of this report. Section 2.0 provides a concise description of the plant intake and dis-charge structures. Furthermore, the discharge zone, existing thermal plume, and /iT are discussed here in relation to operating limits. Power plant use and operating history will be briefly discussed. This section will include a summary of the contents of the 1974 ETSs and any additional modification and/or amendment. A copy of the original and the modified ETSs wil. be presented in appendix form.
- Section 3.0 provides assessments, major conclusions reached in this document, and a short discussion on potential discharge and intake
] impacts generally associated with power plant operation. Analyses will be provided on operational impact predictions as projected in the L 1-4 1
. _ . . _ . _ . , . . .. . , - - - - . . _ . . - , , , . , , , . . . - . . . m. . . __ .-
1973 FES. An in-depth analyr.is of impacts observed during the operational years is provided in Section 3.0. A comparison is made between preoperational projec. ions of impacts and impacts observed during the operational years. The evaluations of operational impacts in this section were made on a trophic level basis. Section 4.0 summarizes conclusions reached in this document, based on data, analyses, and discussions presented in Section 3.0. 1-5 i
a L4 Ah.6 2$__44h---.4.-e **e .,s& _a1mm
, _aJ.,a.$.,,_ Jsmas_J-4m-a-h.,_.4 L4__;_.L %m m. A.'i.L, 4L_ _a_2&_h..;. _--_.,,4c.- 2 2 _4_ d hJ. m-.- .L.;._
- l 1
i 6 f I l l I I
+
[ 1 I 4 ^ l l
- I t
4 b { P 2.0 STATION DESCRIPTION i F 4 I I i l .! l I i v t a j k 1 t 1 i f
)
i e 4 1
- - - - ,_. .--- - ,--..- - - - - - _ - . . . -- . . + ,-,- ., , - - ---- . - - . ,- ---.- - --.-- .., , , .... . . - . .,- _ ... --,. . _. _._
)
2.0 STATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) is located in Linn County, Iowa, on the west bank of the Cedar River. The station is 8 miles northwest of Cedar Rapids and 2-1/2 miles north-northeast of Palo, Iowa (see Figure 2-1). !
! I DAEC is a 569-MW (net) nuclear electrical generating station with a closed-cycle cooling system. The cooling water is withdrawn from the Cedar River, circulated through the plant, and pumped to forced-draft evaporative cooling towers. With the exception of water lost to the atmosphere as vapor from the cooling towers, all water used during plant operation is ultimately discharged to the river. In operation at the design operating level of 1,658 MW, the plant dissipates about 3.6 x <
109 BTU / hour to the main condenser (95 percent) and residual heat removal systems (5 percent).3 The controlled release of nuclear energy is used to form steam in the core of a single-cycle, forced-circulation boiling water reactor. General Electric Company built the nuclear steam-supply system and turbine generator system.3 2.2 PLANT WATER USE AND COOLING SYSTEM 2.2.1 Plant Water Use Water withdrawn from the Cedar River is used as circulating water (con-l denser cooling water) and service water (residual heat removal, emer-gency service water, general service water, and fire protection water systems). Water is pumped into the plant from the river at the rate of , 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Wells supply the demineralizer makeup water, potable water, and water for air cooling systems. The net water consumption is 7,000 gpm of river water (evaporated from the cooling towers) and about 1,500 gpm of well water.3 i 2-1
l l MINNESOTA 3
\ _ _ _
_$ WISCONSIN Te , ui 5 i e
' 0 W^ h k3 i N
\
Waterloo Dubuque S, SITE N E Cedar Rapid 7 Des Moines ILLINOIS f _ _ _ KANSAS SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM REFERENCE DOCUMENT NO.17. t DUANE ARNOLD I Figure 2-1 l LOCATION MAP: DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER l-l - ENERGY CENTER l 2-2 i
I I Liquid chlorine is used as a biocide to prevent the formation of bacter-ial slimes on heat transfer surfaces. Chlorine is added to the circu-lating water at the condenser inlet for limited periods several times a day. Additional chemicals are used to regenerate demineralizers for purifying plant water supplies, maintenance of water quality, corrosion inhibition, and cleaning. Concentrations of these cheuicals are reduced to trace levels af ter mixing with river water, and measurable effects on aquatic biota are restricted to a small area (<1 acre) near the outfall.3 Monitoring requirements specified in the plant NPDES permit and the ETSs are fulfilled during routine operations. Studies conducted after' plant startup adjacent to and downstream of the plant discharge are designed to identify major environmental changes caused by plant operation and facilitate corrective action should deleterious environmental ef fects oCCut. 2.2.2 Cooling Water System DAEC uses a closed-cycle cooling system employing forced-draf t evapora-tive cooling towers to dissipate waste heat from the main condenser and the residual heat removal systems. Circulating water is pumped from the Cedar River and returned to the river as blowdown discharge through a discharge structure placed in the river bottom (see Fig ire 2-2) . An overflow weir, discharging to an open canal into the river, accommodates water flows above 4,000 gpm. Two mechanical-draft cooling towers are used to remove nearly the full heat load under all predicted weather conditions. The towers are of the cross-flow type, with air entering the side through louvers and passing horizontally through the zone of water falling over splash bars. The air then passes through baffles serving as drift eliminators and enters the central air exhaust pl en um. Air leaves the tower by being exhausted vertically by large electrically driven fans.3 1 2-3
E K G N D E A B D RE L S F O T N R O N E E R C T P A A U W T E Y N G A ER U N D E 3 R
- E B
% L M
U 4 L A N N T g W N E R E M I U R C R O A D B E D C L N N E R O er E N F R gh+ E R A 4 0 T M O E N R Q F A 4 D U 0 E I D R F I I R E D O W O F M E ER S KU : E E AT TC C R NU R U U I R T T O S C U R ' T E l ~ S S U x E 01 1 G P E P R M I A
\P U P H E C OE G S TG R I R
RL A D E A ll A\ N 1 1 C T CA SC S D N I I D 2 NE D - AC 2 Y E eK GR r uTAE i gN NE F I wL
i 2.3 INTAKE AND DISCHARGE SYSTEMS 2.3.1 Intake Structure Water is drawn from the river through an intake structure located on the bank of the river at the southeast edge of the site, as shown in Figure 2-2. A normally submerged barrier wall of sheet piles has been constructed across the full width of the river (approximately 400 feet) with an overflow weir at the western shore (immediately adjacent to the intake structure) in order to assure maximum river-water availability for plant intake in case of abnormally low river flow. Average river surface elevation is 731 feet, which corresponds to a river depth of 9 feet and a flow volume of 3,065 cfs (approximately 1.38 x 106 g pm) . The minimum daily flow recorded at Cedar Rapids was 212 cfs (elevation not available), and the maximum flow was 73,000 cfs, corresponding to a river surface elevation of 746.5 feet at the station site (river depth was 24.5 feet) . The top of the barrier is 725.5 feet; and the top of the weir is 724.5 feet. The barrier is shown in Figure 2-3. Intake water from the river first passes through a bar grill serving as a trash rack. The grill opening extends from elevation 722 feet to 753 feet. Design maximum and minimum river elevations are 752.5 feet and 725.0 feet, respectively. The grill is mounted with a slight incline to the vertical. The bars are 0.5 inch x 3 inches mounted edge-wise to flow with 2-inch spaces between them. At minimum river flow (minimum elevation), the intake velocity for the normal 11,000 gpm intake flow is about 0.3 foot /second at the entrance. At higher river elevations, the intake velocity will be lower, because of the increased area at the intake opening. Two traveling screens, each with 3/16-inch square mesh openings, are used. The maximum velocity (at minimum river elevation) is about 0.75 foot /second through the screens. The channel velocity approaching the screens is lower, about that of the trash rack. The screens have an automatic wash cycle operating between a pressure drop of 3/4 inch of water and 3 inches of water. Debris, including fishes, on the screen is backwashed and collected in a wire basket for inspection and for
. of f-site removal.
2-5
l RIVER BED 722' l t
@ 725.5' l 724.5 l ,
# 0*
/
I / ( hs, i . l RIVER BED 722' l SOURCE: REFERENCE DOCUMENT h"JMBER 3 I l Figure 2-3 DUANE ARNOLD WEIR AND BARRIER ARRANGEMENT ENERGY CENTER ON THE CEDAR RIVER 2-6
Two water-supply pumps are located behind each traveling screen. Exit water from each pair of pumps is conducted separately in a 24-inch diameter pipe connected to the circulating-water pump house. The intake structure is provided with a 24-inch diameter warm-water line from the circulating water system to provide deicing by spraying at the grill inlet. Cates between the trash grill and the traveling screen are also provided to shut off the river inlet during maintenance periods.3 2.3.2 Discharge System The closed-cycle, circulating-water cooling system of the plant is supplied with river water to make up for losses which occur at the evaporative cooling towers and to provide a purge to limit acc umulat ion of nonvolatile dissolved solids in the circulating water. This purge discharge is taken from the system at the exit of the circulating-water pumps and, thus, is at the low temperature of the cooling water and at the full head of the pumps. This discharge, also termed the " blowdown,"
- is piped into an open discharge canal where it flows to the river through the discharge structure. The structure consists of an 18-inch diameter pipe with a reducer at the discharge which results in a 15-inch discharge stream. This conducts all discharge water to the river under the design outfall rate of about 4,000 gpm (8.9 cfs). The opening of the discharge pipe is oriented so that the discharge occurs at the bot-tom of the river (at the western shore) in the downstream direction but pointing upward to the surface at an angle of 20* from the bottom. This submerged discharge has a design velocity of 6 feet /second. The temperature of the discharge is reduced by mixing with the river water in concurrent flow.
The system also includes an overflow weir in addition to the discharge pipe described above. The weir is above the level of the discharge pipe, and when flow in the discharge canal goes above 4,000 gpm, the flow will go over the overflow weir. The flow over the weir discharges into an open canal into the river. This provision is made to allow higher flow when required, such as during rains. 2-7
2.4 STATION ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS DAEC circulating water system operates in compliance with NRC Operating License Number DPR-49, and ETSs, Appendix B (see Appendix A). The original ETSs were issued in February 1974. Several modifications of the 1974 ETSs have been issued in succeeding years. A copy of the ETSs from November 14, 1980 is presented in Appendix B. When changes in the ETSs affect the analyses presented here, the version applicable to the specific discussion will be identified. In addition to the ETSs, the station also operates in compliance with limits set in the final Iowa NPDES Permit Number IA 0003727. The 1974 ETSs include the following major classes:
- 1. Environmental Protection Conditions,
- 2. Monitoring Requirements, and
- 3. Environmental Surveillance and Special Studies.
The following is a summary of the contents of the programs covered in the ETSs and limits placed on station operations. 2.4.1 Environmental Protection Conditions (details in Appendices A and B)
- 1. Maximum Discharge Temperature
- a. Maximum discharge temperature shall not exceed 95*F.
- b. Water temperatures sh&11 not exceed 90*F or 5*F above ambient at a point sufficiently far downstream to permit adequate mixing.
- 2. Chemical Discharges Total residual chlorine concentrations shall be limited to 0.1 milligrams per liter (mg/1).
2.4.2 Monitoring Requirements Monitoring of Thermal and Chemical Discharges
- 1. Continuous monitoring of ambient and discharge temperatures shall be accomplished.
i i 2-8
1
- 2. Automatic recording / control equipment shall be used to control dechlorination.
- 3. Appropriate receint records of all chemicals brought into the plant shall be maintained.
2.4.3 Environmental Surveillance and Special Studies
- 1. General Water Quality Analysis--Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, tempera tiire , and 16 other parameters (listed in Appendices A and B) shall be measured twice per month at four river locations and in the discharge canal.
- 2. Complete Water Quality Analysis--The parameters listed in (1), plus 11 additional parameters, shall be measured three times per year at four river locations and in the discharge canal. In addition, DO, pH, and alkalinity shall be deter-mined at each site every four hours over a 24-hour period.
- 3. Plankton Studies--Samples shall be collected twice per month at four river locations and in the discharge canal.
- 4. Benthos, Periphyton, and Fish Studies--Fish, macroinverte-brates, and periphyton in the Cedar River are to be evaluated at sites above and below the plant. Results will be compared to identify any impact of plant effluents on these communities.
- 5. Entrainment Studies--Quarterly determinations of species and biomass of organisms in the intake water shall be assessed by placing plankton nets at the intake structure.
- 6. Impingement Studies--A daily inventory of the number of fish found in the trash collection baskets at the station's intake shall be accomplished. An inventory of species, numbers, and size of all fish taken from the trash collection baskets on a given day will be conducted quarterly.
- 7. Fish Basket Studies--Live boxes containing native fish from the Cedar River shall be placed in the river upstream of the plant and at the mouth of the discharge canal, so that d if ferences in behavior and mortality rate can be compared.
2-9
- 8. Thermal Plume Mapping--Temperature measurements shall be made in the river during representative low flow conditions to verify the extent of the thermal plume.
These programs have been conducted from plant startup in 1974 through 1980 (no 1981 data are available at this time). Changes from the 1974 ETSs to the 1980 ETSs include cessation of semi-monthly bacteriological studies and reduction of benthic studies from quarterly to semi-annually. The 1974 and 1980 versions of the nonradiological ETSs are - reproduced in Appendices A and B, respectively. 2.5 NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS Discharges from DAEC into the Cedar River are subject to limitations set forth in Iowa NPDES Permit Number IA 0003727 (Appendix C). This permit became effective on February 14, 1977, and expired on June 30, 1981. Under Iowa state law, DAEC must continue to operate within the existing permit limitations until a new permit is issued. Discharge limitations on cooling tower blowdown include the following:
- 1. Total discharge shall be limited to a daily average of 26,640 cubic meters per day (m3/ day), and a daily maximum of 27,046 m3 / day.
- 2. Daily average water temperature shall be no higher than 75*F in winter and 85'F in summer; daily maxima shall not exceed 85'F and 95'F, respectively. These limits are simpler than those in the ETSs, which require that maximum temperature in the discharge canal shall not exceed 95'F. If this limit is exceeded, an anlaysis must be performed which combines actual river flow, river temperature, blowdown flow, blowdown
- temperature, and river temperature after mixing. See t
j Appendices A and B for details. c 3. Free available chlorine shall be limited to a daily average of 0.2 mg/l and a daily maximum of 0.5 mg/1. The ETSs (as amended on August 7, 1979) are more stringent, specifying that toal residual chlorine concentrations be limited to 0.1 mg/l or less at all times, j 4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units. l 2-10
r 2.6
SUMMARY
OF STATION DESCRIPTION DAEC is a nuclear generating station utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system with forced-draf t cooling towers. The station has been in commercial operation since early 1974. It has a net generating capacity of 569 MW and a reactor thermal rating of 1,658 MW. Approximately 11,000 gpm of cooling water is pumped from Cedar River, of which about 4,000 gpm is returned to the river as blowdown discharge with a AT of 13.6*F to 38.l*F. The higher AT values occur in winter, when ambient water temperature is lower. The station has a shoreline intake structure and a submerged discharge structure located downstream from the intake. The station operated according to the specifications of the Iowa NPDES and NRC ETSs. 2-11
)
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT I e l
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE This section presents a discussion of potential direct and indirect impacts that are generally associated with power plant operations. This summary discussion is generic, however, site-specific data are used when available. This section is designed to clarify sensitive areas likely to be changed by intake and discharge effects; it establishes a basis of comparison for the impact analyses o f DAEC. 3.1.1 Potential Direct Effects 3.1.1.1 Thermal Tolerance and Threshold--Direct effects of heat on aquatic organisms are dependent on several interrelated factors, the most important of which are rate of temperature change, ambient water temperature, lit, and duration of exposure of an organism to heated water. Organismal responses to a heated effluent are species specific. Organisms exposed to a heated discharge can experience acute or latent effects. Acute effects result in an immediate response, such as avoid-ance or increased respiration rate; latent effects result in a wide spectrum of responses incuding changes in growth, reproduction patterns, and other similar physiological parameters. Each organism has a zone of tolerance and a thermal preference. Thermal preference changes with season and results in avoidance or attraction to a heated zone. Summer preference generally results in avoidance when preferred temperature is below plume temperature. In cold months, preference is for warmer water temperatures, which tend to attract organisms to plant thermal plumes. During the period of warmer water temperature (roughly June to Septem-ber), the Cedar River's ambient water temperature can range from approx-imately 51 to 89'F. Mean summer ambient temperature range is about 68 to 78'F.3 Maximum plant discharge temperature from DAEC during the monitoring period from 1974 to 1979 was 90.5*F.4 The maximum temperature increase (tit) measured at the station from 1974 to 1979 was 36.7'F, and it occurred on December 5, 1979.5 The heated water is normally rapidly diluted by the receiving waters. However limited the 3-1
mixing zone, the maximum discharge temperature of 90.5*F exceeds summer lethal thresholds for several fish species collected from the Cedar River.6 For example, the summer lethal threshold is 88*F for blue-gill, 85'F for channel catfi.*b, and 81*F for emerald shiner. The summer lethal threshold for largemouth bass is 91*F, only 0.5*F higher than the maximum discharge temperature. Thermal tolerance limits dif fer for different life stages of the same species. It is a well established fact that fish tend to avoid higher temperatures during the summer period, but are attracted to higher water temperatures during cold periods. 3.1.1.2 Plant Shutdown--Cold shock was not evaluated during the monitoring program, however, the potential for cold shock impact due to DAEC exists. Cold shock may occur when the addition of heated water is interrupted during the winter months due to plant shutdown. The severity of cold shock stems from the lack of physiological ability of aquatic organisms to adjust rapidly to declining water temperature. Generally, fish are more sensitive to decreasing water temperature than to corresponding increases in water temperature.7 During the monitoring program from 1974 to 1980, DAEC shutdown occurred on dif ferent occasions during the cold months (e.g., February 1976; March 1977; and March 1978), but data were not collected during these shutdown periods and there are no records of visual observations. 3.1.1.3 Impingement--Impingement impacts result when organisms too large to pass through the intake screens become trapped. Juvenile and adult fish and larger types of crustaceans are prime candidates for impingement. Several factors interact to determine the number of organisms, species, and size classes impinged on power plant screens. These factors are likely to change from year to year, seasonally, monthly, and daily. It is, therefore, imperative in impact studies to emphasize trends and relationships of impingement to the ecosystem. The numerical deviations of impingement become probabilistic rather than deterministic. 3-2
3.1.1.4 Entrainment--Free-floating, or planktonic, organisms such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish eggs and larvae are subject to thermal shock and mechanical stress during passage through the plant cooling water system. Passage of aquatic organisms through the plant condenser could result in no effect, instantaneous mortality, or changes in the physiological conditions of the organisms which ultimately affect their survival. Several factors act both separately and in combination to determine the fate of organisms passing through the condenser. These factors include ZsT across the condenser, time of exposure, mechanical abrasions, pressure changes, and chlorine concentrations.
- 3.1.1.5 Chlorination--Fouling of condenser tubes by bacterial slimes and other organisms can seriously reduce heat-transfer efficiency.8 Tiquid chlorine is added to the circulating water at the DAEC condenser it. 't for biocidal purposes. Residual chlorine and the chloramines formt upon reaction with naturally occurring nitrogenous organic compounds are toxic to aquatic life.9 Sensitivity of fishes is highly dependent upon species, as well as water temperature, pH, and duration of exposure.8 3.1.2 Potential Indirect Effects--DAEC has a submerged discharge. The station's discharge through a submerged system could result in the following
- 1. Water currents could draw eggs, larvae, and other free-floating organisms into the heated plume (plume entrainment), thus exposing them to temperatures higher than ambient.
- 2. Production of currents acts as a near-field attractant to fish.
- 3. Movement of plume-entrapped orgaaisms to the surface exposes them to a sudden change in pressure.
- 4. Potential reduction in dissolved oxygen by heating or increased biological oxygen demand could occur.
i 3-3
- - - - . - - . . -- - - ..---_l - . . - - - . - -- .
4 3.2 PREOPERATIONAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PROJECTIONS The Final Environmental Statement (FES)3 for DAEC discussed potential environmental impacts of station operation on Cedar River aquatic biota, j These impact predictions were based on preoperational monitoring performed in 1971. The FES concluded in its impact projection (pages i l and li) that:
- 1. Total residual chlorine in the discharge plume may reach 0.5 parts per million (ppm) periodically. The chlorine levels i may prove toxic to river biota in local regions, particela ly to fish attracted to the thermal plume in the winter.
- 2. Under the worst conditions, the temperature of the river will
- be increased 2*F in a region less than one acre in surface area, and the plume will never extend beyond one quarter of the width of the river. After mixing, the temperature of the river will increase not more than 1.l*F. This will cause a decreese of not more than 0.5 ppm dissolved oxygen.
1 q 3. Most biota passing through the intake screens will be killed. j Impingement is expected to be minimal because of the low j (<0.75 foot /second) velocity at the screen. Less than i 1 percent of the river will be diverted during average flows, and less than 10 percent will be diverted during low flows. The following five factors associated with plant operations have ) potentially detrimental effects on Cedar River aquatic life in the
- vicinity of the station
1
- 1. Effects resulting from organismic exposure to elevated water temperature at the point of discharge and in the mixing' zone;
- 2. Effects on river biota from residual chlorine in the cooling
- water blowdown discharge; '
- 3. Effects on river biota due to sewage effluent and sulfates in the plant service water discharge; 4 Impingement of fish on the cooling-water intake traveling screens; and i
3-4
- 5. Entrainment of plankton, ichthyoplankton, and drift benthic organisms in the condenser cooling water.
The following sections present summaries of conclusions and projections of impacts which were presented in the DAEC FES on each of these five factors. 3.2.1 Thermal Discharges
- 1. Below Mixing Zone--If complete mixing occurs, the blowdown water from DAEC will normally cause a 0.1 to 0.2*F tempera-ture rise in the Cedar River below the mixing zone. The maximum tsT at historical low flows would not exceed 1.l*F.
This increase in water temperature over ambient temperature is not expected to have any damaging effect on river organ-isms, including fish. The decrease in concentration of dis-solved oxygen associated with a 1.1*F increase in temperature is small (<0.5 ppm) in terms of the total dissolved oxygen in the Cedar River (4.7 to 16.5 ppm). This will have a negligi-ble effect on river biota.
- 2. Plume Effects--Depending on ambient conditions and season, some effects on fish may be observed before complete mixing of the thermal effluent with the river. These effects are discussed in the following paragraphs. The impact of these plume effects will be confined to an area of less than l 1 acre, with no more than 25 percent of the river width i
affected.
- a. Winter Conditions--During periods of colder ambient river temperatures, fish may be attracted to the thermal plume, probably because of preferred temperature conditions and the improved availability of food. The strong discharge jet (6 feet /second) will probably prevent most fish from entering the warmest areas of the plume, and they will probably seek a zone of preferred temperature where they can maintain themselves with minimal sw mming effort.
i 3-5
The residence of fish in the heated effluent may have the following consequences:
- 1) Increased metabolic rate, causing decrease of condi-tion factor (weight / length ratio).
- 2) Premature spawning, leading to loss of fry due to lack of proper food. Loss of some fry of white sucker and sauger (uncommon species in the Cedar River) during the winter at DAEC is expected.
- 3) Increased susceptibility to pesticides. Some fish species seem to be more susceptible to the lethal ef fects of pesticides with increasing temperatures.
The possibility exists that the plume temperature may have a similat effect on species present in the Cedar River.
- 4) Cold shock in case of sudden plant shutdown. During a sudden plant shutdown, a drop in temperature to ambient will occur over a period of a few hours.
Fish resident in the thermal plume and acclimated to that temperature may be killed due to the drop in temperature. Th is loss could not be avoided during an emergency shutdown. This situation, however, is remote. In other instances, cold shock can be prevented by scheduling shutdowns for other than winter months, or by assuring that shutdowns are carried out over a period of days.
- 5) Exposure to chlorine, leading to injury and/or death.
No problem is anticipated due to discharges of total chlorine up to 0.2 mg/l for a maximum of 2 hours per day, since the exposure times will be short and intermittent. In addition, carp and cat fish appear to be relatively tolerant to chlorine concentrations. Discharges greater than 0.2 mg/l total chlorine, hovever, may injure or kill the fish attracted to the 3-6 i l 1
discharge by the warm water if they remain near the ; outfall. It is important, therefore, that chlorina-tion be limited as much as possible during the winter months. Due to the colder intake water temperature and lack of agricultural runoff during the winter, the amount of chlorine needed in the intake water for slime control should be much less than that required during the rest of the year. It is suggested that i chlorination be performed only when a definite slime buildup is indicated, and that quantities be minimized and rigidly controlled. iftotalresidual chlorine concentrations exceed 0.2 mg/l at the river discharge point, monitoring for symptoms of chlorine and chloramine-related damage to fish must be conducted and chlorine additions further limited if these kinds of damage are detected.
- b. Warm Weather Conditions--Effects of the thermal discharge on fish during the warmer months are not expected to be as critical as during the winter. Cedar River fish in the area of station will be free to seek their preferred temperatures. No fish should reach the discharge canal.
Some adverse effects that may possibly occur include:
- 1) Increased incidence of fish diseases. Studies have indicated acceleration of certain diseases and the development of parasites in heated waters.
- 2) Exposure to chlorine. It is expected that most fish will avoid the discharge plume when they sense a chlorine gradient, particularly in warm weather when warm water other than the discharge plume is avail-able to them. The plume should not occupy a large portion of the river, even during low flow periods.
Fish in the Cedar River may avoid concentrations of chlorine. However, it is possible that some fish, 1 3-7 l
l i 1 l particularly fry, may not avoid chlorine concentra-l tions; others may be present in the discharge area between chlorination periods and be shocked by a I l sudden discharge of chlorire. Chlorine discharges less than 0.2 mg/l total e alorine should not harm j adult fish during intermittent exposures, although fry of certain species may be sensitive. j i
- c. Effect on Biota Other Than Fish l 1) Benthic Organisms--The blowdown water discharge jet is directed upward from the bottom, and mixing with river water is so rapid that benthic organisms should experience little of the heated effluent except at the outfall. Although some local temperature increases will occur, various species of benthic organisms can tolerate considerable changes in temperature.
4 The benthic population in the Cedar River near DAEC . is sparse because of shifting sediments. Scouring , action and turbulence caused by the discharge jet
- will probably be the limiting factor in maintenance
) of benthos in that location, rather than the tempera-
; ture. The destructive effects of temperature and 1
scouring will very likely be limited to about one quarter of an acre of the river bottom near the discharge pipe.
- 2) Plankton--A portion of the phytoplankton and zoo-
{ plankton in the river will drift into the warmed i plume. The residence time in.the plume will be rela-tively brief, and the temperature of the plume will rapidly decrease downstream. Because of the small i 3-8
size of the plume and the relatively low temperature of the discharge water, damage to the total phyto-plankton and zooplankton populations in the river by heat is not anticipated. 3.2.2 Entrainment and Impingement
- 1. The intake velocity will be 0.3 fps at minimum river flow (less at higher flow rates). The intake structure is designed so that flow through the screens will be ca uniform as possible at a velocity of <0.75 fps to minimize the ertrainment and impingement of fish from the Cedar River.
Most adult and juvenile fishes would then avoid being drawn into the traveling screens.
- 2. Smaller planktonic organisms, primarily bacteria, phytoplank-ton, and zooplankton, will readily pass through the 3/16-inch mesh traveling screens and condensers. It can be assumed that most of these will be killed. However, plankton repro-duces rapidly, and no species' population is likely to be perceptibly depressed as a result of full power operation at DAEC. Furthermore, at normal river flow, less than 1 percent of the river water will be used by the plant.
- 3. Most of the ichthyoplankton, as well as eggs and larvae of benthic forms, will be attached to or lying on the river bot- <
tom. They would thus not normally be subject to entrainment by DAEC. Only during record low flows would the river be diverted to the lower (weir) section of the barrier which spans the river, and thereby risk damage to river biota forced to pass the outfall. 3.2.3 Chemical Effluents The only chemical discharge considered to be potentially harmful to Cedar River biota is residual chlorine. The following paragraphs, 3-9
excerpted from the FES,3 include background information on chlorine discharges and predictions of the extent and possible effects of residual chlorine in Cedar River. In either its free or combined form, chlorine is toxic to living organisms. The concentration of total residual chlorine (composed of both free and combined chlorine) in the blowdown will depend upon the concentration of ammonia, ammonia-cont aining compounds, and other oxidizable substances in the watet, among other factors. . ..The State of Iowa has not specified an allowable residual chlorine concentration in discharge waters, but the AEC [NRC) Staff has established the following guidelines for receiving streams in cases of intermittent chlorine utilization. For a period of two hours per day, the concentration of total residual chlorine may be up to but not exceed 0.1 mg/1. This concentration would not protect trout and salmon but should protect warm water species. This recommendation assumes that no free chlorine is present. For continuous discharge the concentration of total chlorine in the receiving stream must not exceed 0.005 mg/l to protect most warm water species of fish. This concentration would not protect some l fish food organisms or sensitive life stages of certain fish species. Note that these guidelines are for the receiving stream. In view of the fact that concentrations of total chlorine below 0.1 mg/l cannot be reliably measured with present field methods, and in order to protect chlorine-sensitive organisms in the area of the outf all, the Staff is of the opinion that the two hour limit of 0.1 mg/l stated above must be measured in the effluent before discharge to the river. During the remainder of the time the limit for continuous discharge of 0.005 mg/l should be met. Since this concentration of total residual chlorine cannot be reliably measured with present methods, the Applicant [IELPCo] will only be required to insure that total residual chlorine in the blowdown is substantially below the limit of reliable analysis as will be detailed in the Technic'al Specifications. However, it is not clear whether it will be possible to control residual chlorine in the blowdown at all times to conform to the recommendation stated above without add it ional treatment of the discharge. No free chlorine is expected to be present in the discharge to the river due to rapid reaction with oxidizable substances in the water. Combined compounds, however, particularly monochloramine, are expected to form in the cooling water due to the presence of ammonia in the Cedar River water...which will react with the free chlorine. 3-10
Concentrations of chloramine up to about 5 ppm.. .are likely.... Mixing of the water in the chlorinated condenser half with water from the unchlorinated condenser half (chlorine will be added to 1/2 of the condenser at a time) will reduce the concentration of chlorine in the water by dilution and reaction with chlorine-demanding substances, but the extent which this will reduce the total chlorine in the blowdown is presently not predictable due to the wide fluctuation in chlorine demand of the water. Chlorine demand may rise to 15 ppm during early spring when runoff from farm land is maximum. If such runoff contains [high] concentrations of ammonia...the concentration of chloramine in the circulating water ahead of the cooling tower will be higher than the 5 ppm maximum stated above. Because of the uncertainty in expected levels of residual chlorine in the blowdown, the Applicant (IELPCo] will be allowed an interim period in which to determine whether total chlorine in the discharge to the river will exceed the recommended criteria at any time during the year. If such i occurs, the Applicant [IELPCo] must, within this interim period, determine the extent of the area in which chlorine in the river is detectable and must adopt an ecological monitoring program which will determine the ef fects of chlorination on the aquatic ecosystem. . . . A limit of 0.5 mg/l total chlorine in the discharge for a period not to exceed two hours per day, is considered a maximum acceptable concentration during this interim period. At all other times, total residual chlorine in the discharge must not exceed 0.1 mg/l during the interim period. These limits are based on the following:
- a. Even with the historical 10 year low flow these levels will assure that after mixing (dilution factor of 20) total residual chlorine in the river will be 0.01 mg/1, or less, except for a maximum of two hours per day when it may reach 0.05 mg/1.
- b. The area of the river at the immediate outfall, in which the guidelines may be exceeded, will be
' relatively small in extent....
- c. The species of fish in the Cedar River are more tolerant of chlorine than cold water species such as salmon and trout. Sensitive species of zooplankton and benthos, as well as sensitive stages of a particular fish species' life cycle may be adversely affected by this discharge at the immediate outfall, but such effects are not expected to affect the total river ecology. In the event that deleterious ef fects j are found by the monitoring program, the Applicant i
i l l l 3-11
[IELPCo] must reduce chlorine concentrations in the discharge as needed to protect the river's ecosystem. In order to assure that plant operation does not result in long term adverse changes in the Cedar River, the Applicant [IELPCo] must initiate a study of methods for chlorine control, if concentrations of total residual chlorine in the blowdown exceed the guidelines as stated above. Within twelve months after startup the Applicant [IELPCo) will submit to the Staff a report stating that it can or cannot meet the limits established in the Technical Specifications. If it cannot, then a plan will also be submitted stating what modifications the Applicant [IELPCo] proposes to enable the DAEC to meet the limits. Stricter limits will be applied if required by Iowa State Standards or other applicable standards at that time.... Depression of phytoplankton photosynthesis and respiration in the vicinity of a power plant on the St. Croix River were tied to chlorination. Similar effects may occur locally in the plume area near the DAEC as a result of chlorinated discharges into the Cedar River, but plankton productivity should soon recover downstream from the discharge zone, and not affect the total river ecosystem to any observable extent. The river monitoring program will determine whether there are any observable effects. On March 29, 1978, IELPCo requested that free available chlorine concentrations specified in the ETSs be modified to match those specified in the NPDES permit.10 The original chlorination system was not keeping biofouling to acceptable levels. Subsequent discussions between NRC staff and IELPCo resulted in modifications to IELPCo's request. Consideration of the relevant factors led to the conclusion that the proposed modifications of the ETSs and the addition of a dechlorination system would not have sig'nificant adverse impacts on the environment in the vicinity of DAEC.II On August 7,'1979, NRC issued an amendment to the ETSs which specified that total residual chlorine concentrations shall be limited to 0.1 mg/l or less at all times, and that the cooling tower effluent shall be dechlorinated as necessary to maintain that limit.I2 3.3 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The summary and conclusions of operational impacts presented in this section represent the findings of 7 years (1974 through 1980) ' ' 3-12
of monitoring ef fects of DAEC on the Cedar River aquatic comunity. These studies involved river populations of phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplanktoa, benthos, and fish, as well as fish impingement , entrainment, and live holding cage studies. Conclusions presented in this section were based on data interpretation appearing in the Semi-Annual and Annual Environmental Reports prepared for IELPCo. These conclusions are distinguished from those of Section 3.4, which arc based on independent evaluation and interpretation of available preoperational and operational data. 3.3.1 Discharge Impacts
- 1. Thermal plume dimensions are determined, to a large extent, by river flow conditions and total plant heat rejection. The DAEC ETSs (Appendix A) specify that " temperature measurements in the river will be made during representative low flow conditions (300 to 400 cfs) to verify the extent of the thermal plume."
Thermal plume mapping was conducted at least once each year from 1974 through 1978; the river flow did not drop below the minimum specified for plume mapping during 1979 or 1980, and no mapping was done.
- 2. Estimated area of the river subject to a AT of 5*F or greater ranged from less than 0.1 acre in 1974 and 1978 to about 2.6 acres in 1977. During the worst-case conditions in 1977, river flow was very low at 283 cfs. The horizontal and vertical extent of the thermal plume at that time can be estimated from Figures 3-1 and 3-2, which were generated f rom calculated models. The maximum extent of the 5'F excess isotherm was about 85 feet of fshore, and for most of its length the 5*F isotherm rarely extended more than 65 feet offshore. The Cedar River was approximately 200 feet wide at this time, so that a substantial portion of the river's width was available for fish passage. All thermal plume mapping occurre d during the fall and winter when riv.er flows were lowest.
3-13
l SUMMER# 3000 CFS SUMMER, 300 CFS p 'l / / PREDICTED RIGHT l PRE DI CTED , RIGHT '
.' / STREAM BANK I S TRE AM B ANK d BOUNDARY l BOUNDARY I
\
l
/ h F \
'I T=77.9 /
, 4
- f 6T=20 f I T=77.9 I '
6T=5 i
&= 2 * ,I i
BLOWDOWN DISGARGE , BLOWDOW ; DISQARGE PIPE >IPE I WEIR WEIR BAPAIER WALL' DISGARGE CANAL # BARRIER MALL DIS G ARGE CAN AL 3 u WINTER, 3000 CFS ,, WINTER,300 CFS
;', RIGHT ' l PREDICTED RIGHT l STPIAM % BANK N l [ PREDICTED STREAM BOUNDARY BANK
# i I,
BOUNDARY g T=34.1 [ f 3 q l) 4 l j 4 61=2 lIl I o l '
/ T=34.1 [
i
'/
dT= 2 l bT=10 j or=so 9 l l BLOWDOWN DISGARGE ' BLOWDOW ' DISGARGE PIPE l'IPE [ WEIR WEIRT ,, p g
# DISCH ARGE CANAL BARRIER WALL DISGARGE CANAL B ARRIER W ALL/
I o 8P 8P SOURCE: MODIFIhhRDM5tEFERENCEDOCUstENTNUMBER3. i Figure 3-1 DUANE ARNOLD SURFACE TEMPERATURE-RISE ISOTHERM 5 ENERGY CENTER 3-14
SURFACE ELEV. 731.0 SUMMER, 3000 CFS
.=
AT=3 AT=5 RIVER FLOW --> [ 4T=10 a 7_ - _ n w :s ,,,- ' s& 9% g<;pu w %Q^ "Mgp" cQ'4--- -- Av.BIENT TEMP.=77.90F DISCHARGE TEMP.=91.5 F BLOWDOWN DISCHARGE PIPE SURFACE ELEV 7M 0 WINTER, 3000 CFS
=
aT=20 4T=7 ~ aT=2 o T=15 oT=10 RIVER FLOW --> j
,, sp , a.a. , s.- fG%QtVntn - %;~,lg ygfp~
--6.- -- --
AM3IENT TEMP.=34.1 F .-- BLOWDGWN DISCHARGE TEMP.=72.2 F DISCHARGE PIPE SURFACE ELEV. 726.5 __ SUMMER, 300 CFS RIVER FLOW --> , ate l2 LT=10 LT=5
]/, fg *4.WgBb['TZMD .=77.9 F " '
W BLOWDOWN DISCHAD.GE TEMP.=91.5 F LISCHARGE PIPE ;- I SURFACE ELEV. 726.5 WINTER, 300 CFS RIVER FLOW d~ AT=35 4T=25 4T=20
" M , D"dW Myp.%s- .
m,
-cr_
( - +I ~
'AM3IENT TEMP.=34.1 F 2 0 5 BLOWDOWN DISCHARGE TEMP .=72.2 F DISCHARGE PIPE SCALE,ft SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM REFERENCE DOCUMD'T h'JMBER 3.
Figure 3-2 DUANE ARNOLD VERTICAL TEMPERATURE-RISE ISOTHERMS ENERGY CENTER 3-15
Thermal blockage would be a potential problem during warmer months, but Cedar River flows are relatively high then, and the thermal plume is proportionately smaller. The re fore , no the rmal blockage is expected on the Cedar River due to the heated discharge from DAEC.
- 3. Detectable effects on Cedar River water quality due to DAEC operations were generally restricted to Station 3, immediately downstream of the discharge (see Figure 3-3). Biological sampling and live holding cage studies conducted upstream and
- downstream of the station demonstrated no consistent differences which could be attributed to chemical properties of the blowdown discharge. 3.3.2 Entrainment and Impingement
- 1. A total of 2,426 fish was impinged during the period from plant startup in 1974 through 1980. Exclusive of 1974, for which data were incomplete, an average of 402 fish were impinged on the DAEC intake screens each year.
- 2. Young-of-the-year (YOY) channel catfish and various minnow species comprised most of the impinged individuals.
- 3. Given the low percentage of Cedar River flow utilized by DAEC and the small number of fish impinged, the problem of impingement is not considered serious at DAEC.
4 Entr'inment studies have been insufficient to address impacts on ichthyoplankton populations of the Cedar River, llowever, based on the low percentage of river water utilized by the l station for cooling purposes, the level of impact is probably minimal.
- 5. Phytoplankton and zooplankton populations in the Cedar River are crobably not affected by entrainment at DAEC due to the low percentage of river water used by the station.
3-16
l g M[,xseg g N__ VILES AREA LOC ATION MAP l , O O.5 1 2 wiNNesoTA l ( FEET (x 1000) - o g lowA *a O I 2 3 4 5 o , LEWIS BOTTOM ._. ACCESS Waterto Dubucue
% SITEVM a Cecer Recies %
Des Moines ILL!NCis 1% KANSAS gi d C6 P:.EASANT CREEK RESERVOIR DUANE I ARNOLD { ENERGY J CENTER imxt ots:HanGE h[ 5 3 N 4M AOn
't
%z%c
( o I!Milii D N, : iini.u
\ 5. . - .-- S A MPLING LOC ATIONS T & A 1 - 5.. AouATIC SOtmCE: MODTFTED FROM PEFERENCE DOCUMEhT NUMBER 17.
Figure 3-3 DUANE ARNOLD MAP LOCATING DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY ENERGY CENTER CENTER AND AQUATIC SAMPLING t l LOCATIONS l 3-17
1 4 3,4 EVALUATION OF OBSERVED IMPACTS 4 This section provides an evaluation of impacts of DAEC operations on the aquatic biota of the Cedar River near the station. This evaluation is
, based on a comparison of preoperational and operational data sets, when
~ available, as we'll as changes occurring during the 1974 to -1980 period.
In cases where baseline data are not adequate for comparison,
- j. professional judgment and supporting published data are utilized.
- i. -
j In this section, three major areas are addressed. These are discharge impacts, entrainment, and impingement. A conclusion is provided at ;the end of esch section. 4
' 3 . 4 .'l Discharge Impacts 3.4.1.1 Phytoplankton and Periphyton--Planktonic. organisms drawn thiough the plant's cooling system are subjected to an acute interaction
, of thermal, chemical, and mechanical stresses. Attached and floating organisms in the zone of influence of the discharge are subjected to i ~ less severe chemical and thermal stresses. . Preoperational phytoplankton data were collected from April 1971 through April 1972. The results of this study are currently available only as a brief summary in the Final Environmental Statement (FES).3 Large populations were generally present during spring and summer months, composed chie, fly of the diatom, Cyclotella. Blue green algae, primarily Oscillatcria,' reached greatest concentrations in July and August. Minimum phytoplankton populations occurred during the winter months. No methods are given, and no comparisons are made between preoperational and operational data for phytoplankton. I l Operational phytoplankton sempling was performed twice per month at five stations (see Figure 3-3) from 1974 through 1980. The brief methods descriptions for l'974 to 1978 4,13-17 indicate that counts were made on centrifuged eamples by use of the Whipple micrometer disc and the Sedgwick-Rafter $lide. In addition, a sample of uncentrifuged water was I s 3-18
. .- __ _- ._ . - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ = _ ._ . .__
i 1 examined' from,each site in order to include those blue green algae that are lighter than water and eliminated by the centrifuging process. Beginning in 1979, the phytoplankton collection methodology changed. Samples were taken at each location with a 6-liter Kemmerer or Van Dorn j water sampler and preserved with I percent Lugol's solution. In the .I lahoestory, aliquots were settled in a Zeiss settling chamber and 4 i counted on s Zeiss Ctandard UPL inverted microscope at 400X or 1,000X
't imagnification.
a Data reported for phytoplankton from 1974 to 1978 were sketchy and j , limited. Total' plankton abundances (no./ml) were highly dependent upon fluctuations in the Cedar River flow; high river flows dilute the
; planktoa and low flows allow concentrations to develop. Greatest
_ abundances generally occurred during the summer months, with peak
/ concentrations ranging from 156,000 organisms /ml in 1974 to 846,000
' organisms /ml in 1977. The diatoms Cyclotella and Nitzschia were consistently dominant, with unidentified flagellates and several species of green algae also common. Blue-green algae, chiefly Oscillatoria, usually reached maximum abundance in July through September.
Excluding 1974 data (because DAEC became operational during that year) plankton concentrations were higher downstream from the plant (Location 3, about 140 feet downstream from the discharge) than ! immediately upstream of the intake (Location 2) from 1975 through 1977
- (see-Table 3-1). This trend was reversed in 1978. Concentrations measured in the discharge canal followed the same pattern as those from i ' Location 3, exceeding upstream values in 1975 to 1977 and being exceeded by upstrern' values in 1978. The magnitude of the differences between upstream and downstream plankton concentrations ranged up to about 20 percent. This is well within the bounds of natural variability.
Since plankton organimas drift with water currents and reproduce rapidly, their distribution is often characterized by regions of high i and low density, or " patchiness."18 Collecting only a single sample e { ) 1 i I i
'Y 3-19
I l i I Vm..e 3-1. Total Pimatm Man =Imre (%./ml) in Calar River,17petrean (teratim 2) mit ametreme (tmatim 3) from these Armld 7:nergy Oneter,1973 to 19M 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 19f9 19tt) toc 2 Inc 3 IIC 2 10C 3 IDC 2 inc 3 IDC 2 IIC 3 IDC 2 Inc 3 inc 2 Inc 3 toc 2 10C 3 IDC 2 inc 3 Jausury I 395 1,625 1,320 1,550 2 ,0'10 3,155 11,627 15,770 1,114 I,782 89 81 1.7n6 1,5m F 6ruary 1,763 1,t35 900 710 4,840 6,010 12,9r.8 14,671 1,4f.8 1,131 , 58 81 326 4m Matth 3,170 3,105 2,2M 2,445 3,585 5,010 267,M9 253,765 3,119 5,012 581 1,050 4,4% 4,014 Arail 57,R05 61,$M 11,620 16,190 3,490 3,070 7,610 9,840 499,979 449,210 13,149 8,918 653 138 41,0B8 46,144 Puy 40,300 39,645 26,705 27,6M 22,103 21,015 33,955 37,NA 269,599 244,615 69,975 76,647 9,192 9,891 259,lM 254,110 Je 6,935 5,785 9,930 10,70C 142,533 150,613 598,3M 163,202 13,614 5,foO II,930 14,168 2,625 3,110 My 17,%) 17,583 32,8 % 38,820 179,911 197,lM 4M,85I 5M,ll6 3,609 5,4 63 97,395 106,140 72,165 m ,4N) Casset 10,720 32,220 m ,900 32,400 M ,465 93,'SR 370,649 %5,4A6 153,465 104,8 % 3 72 Sie 29,430 m ,962 Septcyder 140,WD 142,420 89,065 106,772 89,863 135.28R 275,995 276,877 68,9/.I 65,405 9,8m 10,140 40,818 41,681 netther 81,650 R3,fB0 1 % ,230 138,055 159,4M 186,218 248,168 %1,735 10,238 8,641 237,725 204,483 171,8 % 1%, lor, O nwoder 14,135 12,740 61,600 107,815 140,421 171,785 17,375 20,505 20,939 18,189 15,956 14,150 10,893 10,916 tt2 ceder 2,2fn 2,693 10,625 10,455 38,045 51,231 '20,(V.R 19,157 %5 245 5,453 5,982 6,%5 6,2A0 Yearly Hrms 49,053 50,5M 2R,lM 29,906 30,7M) 19,4A4 72,567 87,278 252,5 % 277,758 29,996 25,174 32,436 30,652 53,452 55,817 Sources: Modified from Reference Document Numbers 3 through 5, 13 through 17. ESE, 1981,
'I i
I at each location increases the probability of over- or underestimating , the population. l Data collected in 1979 and 1980 contained much more detail than those for previous years. General abundance trends over all study years were ] similar, with very low numbers collected in winter and peak numbers collected from late spring through late summer. August and September ' values in 1979 were lower than normal for these months due to flooding conditions in the Cedar River. Diatoms continued to dominate the phytoplankton assemblage in 1979 and 1980. Stephanodiscus invisitatus, Skeletonema potamos, and Cyclotella spp. were among the most abundant diatoms in both years. Dif ferences in composition and density of phytoplankton were inconsis-tent between sampling locations and years. Given the natural seasonal and spatial variability of the plankton and the small percentage of the
; Cedar River's flow taken into the plant cooling system, there were no i
observable changes in the local phytoplankton community that could be attributed to effects of the station's operation. No preoperational periphyton data are reported in the FES. Sampling was apparently attempted in 1974, with glass slides installed on boxes i j suspended in the river upstream and downstream of DAEC, but no data are reported.4 Studies were conducted in spring, summer, and fall,1975
- through 1980, Glass slides were used to collect samples at Locations 2 and 3 for taxonomic analysis and biomass determination. Only the 1979 and 1980 Environmental Operating Reports '
provide a more complete methods description. After an incubation period of 2 to 4 weeks, slides for species identification and relative abundance were placed in labeled i vials and preserved and stained with Lugol's solution. Four replicate slides per location for biomass determination were frozen until analysis. 3-21
In the laboratory, 2 to 4 slides for periphyton spacies composition and relative abundance determination from each location were scraped. The resultant sample was divided into two portions, one for diatom analysis and the other for nondiatom analysis. The portion for diatom analysis was " cleaned" in a nitric acid and potassium dichromate mixture and prepared as Hyrax mounts. Diatom analyses were conducted at 1,250X magnification utilizing a Zeiss Standard RA research microscope. The material for nondiatom analysis was placed in a blender and mixed for approximately 30 seconds. A semi permanent wet mount was prepared and examined at 500X magnification. Dcta reporting for periphyton was inconsistent from year to year. l Combined with the lack of preoperational data, this makes an evaluation of possible changes due to station operation difficult at best. Biomati data are available for 1975 through 1980. When the units of milligrams / decimeter2 / day are converted to grams / area-slide for 1979 and 1980 data, comparisons between fears and upstream (Location 2) and downstream (Location 3) sample sets are possible. Species lists and abundances from glass slides placed upstream and l downstream from DAEC were generally similar for a given season in a l given year. During 1, /6 to 1978, species listed as dominant (seen in every field observed) or common (seen in the majority of fields observed) at Location 2 were almost invariably listed as dominant or l common at Location 3, and vice versa. Results from 1979 and 1980 periphyton studies were reported in units /cm2 and percent composition. As in previous years, upstream and downstream populations were generally similar, and those dif ferences that were observed were not systematic and not attributable to changes expected from station operations. Examination of periphyton biomass production expressed as ash-free dry weight in grams / area-slide (see Table 3-2) reveals ne striking trends in data collected upstrean and downstream from the station. Values from 3-22
Table 3-2. Periphyton Biomass Data (Grams Ash-Free Dry 'a'eight/ Area Slide) from Cedar River Upstream and Downstream from Duane Arnold Energy Center, 1975 to 1980. Date Upstream Pownstream June 19-July 3, 1975 0.0091 0.0092 October 27-December 1, 1975 0.0040 0.0040 May 11-June 7,1976 0.1140 0.0770 July 23-August 16, 1976 0.0531 0.0706 October 5-November 2, 1976 0.0301 0.0734 May 19-June 14,1977 0.0331 0.0274 October 13-Nove=ber 14, 1977 0.0374 0.0268 May 31-August 7, 1978 0.0019 0.0060 August 21-September 5, 1978 0.0083 0.0008 November 7-November 28, 1978 0.0028 Sampler lost May 8-June 5, 1979 0.0350 0.0118 September 26-October 11, 1979 0.0054 0.0014 October 22-November 19, 1979 0.0250 0.0290 April 7-May 19, 1980 0.1410 0.0197 July 8-September 2, 1980 0.0122 0.0090 October 7-November 18, 1980 0.0386 0.0518 Sources: Modified from Reference Document Numbers 13 through 17. ESE, 1981. 3-23
the Cedar River upstream from DAEC exceeded those of downstream from the station on 8 of the 14 study periods. On one occasion, biomass values were equal upstream and downstream from the station. The downstream slides were lost in November 1978. The overall mean of all the upstream values is 0.0365 gm/ area-slide and the mean of the downstream values is i 0.0279 gm/ area slide. This is a 24 percent difference between locations. Biomast 3ifferences between locations were generally small. The largest value occurred at Location 2 in April and May 1980. Most of the 0.1410 gm/ area-slide was accounted for by high densities of the blue green alga, Lyngbya. If the heated discharge af fected periphyton species composition, one would expect a shift to blue green algae at the downstream lo cion, j instead of the reverse results that were identified in May 1980, as previously described. The inconsistent dif ferences between upstream and downstream locations were probably due to natural causes rather than ef fects of station operation. 3.4.1.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates--Since the animals comprising the benthos are more or less restricted to a fixed location for an extended period of time, they are s' abject to any chemical or thermal perturba-tions in the water flowing around them. Unlike fishes, for example, sessile and burrowing forms cannot swim away from an area where the temperature or chemical composition of the water is outside their physiological range of tolerance. Benthic macroinvertebrates are also a vital component of the aquatic food web. They are, therefore, on important part of the aquatic monitoring program in the vicinity of DAEC. No data on the benthos of the Cedar River in the vicinity of DAEC prior to station operation were available for this report. The data presented in the FES3 were obtained from a study conducted in the Cedar Rapids area of the river, about eight miles downstream from the station. 3-24
i Therefore, no comparison between preoperational and operational benthic , communities near DAEC is possible, , Benthos samples were collected during spring, su=mer, and fall,1974 to 1980, with additional vinter collections made in 1977 and 1978. Sam Ans were collected at Locations 1 and 2 upstream from DAEC and at Locations 3 and 4 downstream from DAEC (see Figure 3-3), using a Ponar grab. Sediment was washed through a #30 mesh screen. No further data on methodology were provided through 1978. The more complete description of methodology provided in the 1979 and 1980 Environmental Operating Reports includes laboratory procedures for benthic sa=ples. The organisms were handpicked from the debris and enumerated using a stereozoom dissecting microscope. Identification of the organiste, except chironomids and oligochaetes, was made while the sa=ples were being sorted. Chironomids and oligochaetes were individually counted and cleared in CMC-10 nonresinous mounting medium prior to examination under a binocular compound microeccoe at a minimus magnification of 100X. The majority of the benthos samples taken from 1974 through 1978 were devoid of macroinvertebrates (see Table 3-3). This was attributed to the shifting sandy substrate of the river bed which was believed to support few macroinvertebrates. Some tubificid worms and chironomid larv3e (totaling about 140 individuals) were collected over the sampling period between 1974 and 1978. The very low numbers found during any particular sampling period in 1974 to 1978 make it difficult to isolate station's effects from natural effects on the benthic community in the s tudy area. Ponar collections from 1979 and 1980 f i elded much greater numbers of organisms than collections from previous years. Since those abundance increases occurred both upstream and downstream from DAEC, they were probably not related to effects of station operation. The apparent causes for the more successful collections were sampling in areas with a 3-25
- - = - - -. .
4 tn 1981* Tsdile M. Mr.suiswertefirate Ahissfaces fasa F<sur l SmT es Taken Upstrem (terstisui 2) mit Dunstrean (1vatisu 3) Isen Due Asisild Fawiyy Cmter,197 Jess = I??S Acut 1975 Seycader 1975 March 1976 Ky 1976 heat 1976 f6weter 1976 Key 19 M A g at 197. Septemfer 19F6 Up- Dur Up- Dur Up- D ue- tip- Dur- Ur nur Up- Dur Ur nur Ur- Dur Up- hv (fr De stre.sn stre.se et sean strem st rem stre.us st re.se st re s= strem streese strean stre.se st rean streme stresso strem stse== streme streas stre;se squd.tirecta er.w Microstrman op. i Ol ie.-hyt e Isais clieciis . ( W G uls spp. 8 Tidiilic i.lM 8 19 1.in tritin hittweisteri 6 E.trilin envivgamis 14 5.n==ttilin a cervia 5t nessna--e-mm. L'"_W."* 'tT-Pot tsmedinis erv. 05 5?? b EY.#_ "lY' 1 Ityilripyric_ os e is Dep er y larve Gietiewskiia sp. U._ e..,.ri._m wsk a t a _or b_icies g 4 9 (J Oiereiemn iny. St icht<wNattnerna sgy. Cb Cowpearies a mm. stnr rosynnerura sp. BOL^'*f.*1v-Cuypt<therisimie cf roll,a Pasarniti m e erl censecteng l Pn riseura mm.
~
5 6 5 PEl'yT*M*9 sm* Polyraisin similais I'didM I*II85 8a'P 4 5 P.'lF_If %' "19-Cav;kia claip;*r : 57tiYr'is 't(( Ca*t rign =1 5ltierii Aw Sjimiin teenverein U_T'1E.'."_ "P- O O 10 29 0 52 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
- m. O I O O O O
Table .)-1. Micruiswertebrste Abiesteres true Pcenar Smyles Takne lipatreme (lmestices 2) mal baistreme (Ier:stics 3) inse Due Aneld Peergy rasiter,1974 to IW (Castirant, Pay:e 2 of 3) Feh. 1977 May 1977 h e mt 1977 inn. 1977 Fe . 1978 May 1978 July 19?M Mw. 1978 lip- Mar Itp- haar lip- n ner- Up- nner- Ifp- n ner- Up- nnan lip- Iknar- lip- Daar Strems Streme Streme Streme Streme Stre.3, Strem Streme Streme Streme Streese Streme Streme Streme Streme Streme (hhiamais op, i Tibilicidm! ! Emery *1:e sear Marrosttwise sp. OliPpchacte i Mais clinypeis - g m .iai. .p. Tidii f icid== 1,ie ntrilias holt ?isteri I,imeririlin nueswmT Einuitrilua cervix , Steisuwmi mm. 2 8 Licnas:estia mm. 2 ] Putamustha egy. I { Argia mm. I lYropsyche egg. 10 W ID.?N Dipterme larve mie I b N Owrvueenhila mm. Quer:3wskiis orbicus Osirtuemim am, j Stichtnchirrnmem ap. Gw7useura sp. near cor m ra y. Taiytarsus gp. , Cryptochironcuen cf rolli Paratmtiges new ccawweteria g' Pmtansa app. rolypnlitise am. Polypvlitese sinnelmis [ Polyrnfilise faltam group Procialius npp. d flaackia eIaviger Sartheria tylta Gegtropal 1 Sghwriidae I Sihaeriise trmisversue Maculiism sp. I r TUrAI, 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 10 e e L t b i
T ele 3-1. nu stwiewertebrate Massimites f rom Psnur S.syles Tahm 'Ipatrean (laratim 2) ami nwintrean (Isretirsi 3) Irgsg nyer Arml.) Faerp;y Omter,1974 to 19m* (rlattirmed, p; ige 3 of 3) May 1979 heint .979 Rw. 1979 May 19m Segt . 19m M w. 19m tip- nur iip- nur lip- nur tip- hur Itp- Due tip- nur Streasu Stre.un Stre.un Strem Strem Stress Stre.ru Stre;en Strem Stre.un Strem Strem ghi4 uis sp. TilviTicTde' hMoela rear herostmin sp. 151 %7 19 5% 227 2nA 2,2tl 170 265 302 FF 265 niierk wte *
!!)
Nais clionais opii4 minis ep. Theilicidic Limmetrilus hof fweisteri 1.imuulritim pressemmis Lin==trilue cervin S8cianwTn A[p. Ih& *W* r.irmswittwo am. Argia rgy. Ilydrornyche app, 95 w Ilyiropsytte orrin Dipterm laiva ,{ % ao Oernwskisa piy. Oernwskiits crhicui 19 248 3R 113 95 Oiironmis sm. Stichterhironmas op. 18 Corynamra sp. 76 7til 3R 19 %8 19 rear coryvmsra ap. - 1 51 113 76 Tmyt arsus sp. 113 Cryptrrhiravam cf rolli 75 raratentip s scar casiectens g32 rmrarura spp. Polyplitisu spp. Polygntilun sirrulmis y rolyintiline iatlax gra9 76 Proci;stius app. Rohackia claviger 57 529 189 265 0 1,%3 li 4% 76 S.ar tlieria tylus 33 g9 Cint roput $67 Sghwriklae S[haerlien troisversisu [9 t/.
!$esculiwa sp.
1M- 492 1, J.4 586 77. 1, n% 246 3.03 643 afi9 529 4D1D9
%its fur 1974 to 1978 are Mv/Crd), mits Evr 1979 ast 19U are M JE of Osa'uw=its D 5 serceut of ==ple).
1 Resmt in collectiort-in delares givm. Sources: Modified from Ref erence Document Numbers 4, 5,13 through 17. ESE, 1981.
i greater percentage of silt and clay and less sand , and improved sorting and identification rechniques. The turbellarian (neat-) Macrostomum sp. and larvae of the chironomids Chernovskiia orbicus, Corynoneura sp., and Robackia clavtger were the fout dominant species in the 1979 and 1980 Ponar collections (see Table 3-3). 'Ihe gastropod Physa sp. and the pelecypod Sphaerium transversum together comprised 78.3 percent of the individuals collected at Location 3 in Novenber 1980, but these species were absent or rare during the other sampling periods. Abundances of h claviger were consistently higher upstream from DAEC, at Location 2, than downstteam, at Location 3 during 1979 and 1980. The lack of a complete and consistent data base makes it impossible to relate these dif ferences to effects of station operation. L claviger is one of the relatively few chironomids known from unstable, mandy s ub s t r a t e s , and it seems probable that the sed iment character-istics of the sampling locations were the most impor t an t in fl uence s af fecting the species composition and abundance reported in the collections. Artificial substrates were utilized to monitor the Cedar River aquatic macroinvertebrate community in 1977, 1979, and 1980. In 1977, artificial substrates "of the Hester-Dendy type,"15 were set at Locations I th ro ugh 4 in s pr ing , s ammner , and f al l . Samples were suspended approximately 30 cm below a float. "Each substrate was unifonnly constructed of nine 6.3-cm dianeter, tempered hardboard plates (0.3-cm thick) mounted on eyebolts and separated by circular spacers. The spacers between plates varied in thickness f rom 0. 3 to 1.3 cm which allowed for colonization by various sized organisms. Each sampler exposed a surface area of 512 sq. em.n5,17 3-29
The samplers were collected with a dipnet after approximately 6 weeks of immersion and placed in a labeled jar of 10 percent Formalin with Rose Bengal stain added to aid sorting. In the laboratory, the samplers were rinsed on a #30 mesh screen. brushed clean of attached material, and material sorted and organisms identified in the same manner as described previously for the Ponar samples. Since no artificial substrates were utilized in the preoperational study, no comparison of findings from before and af ter station opera-tion is possible. Collections from 1977 were made only at Location 3, below DAEC, in spring and fall. Chironomus spp. (midge larvae) were dominant in spring and were the only organisms found in fall. The lack of collections from areas upstream from DAEC during these sampling periods precludes any useful comparisons of the 1977 data. Hester-Dendy collections from 1979 and 1980 had similar patterns of species distribution and seasonal abundance (see Table 3-4). 01igochaetes (Nais spp.) and the mayfly, Isonychia sp., were found at all sampling locations in the spring of both years and at no other time. Hydropsychid caddis flies, particularly Hydropsyche orris, were an important component of the 11 ester-Dendy collections during all sampling periods. Some of the dipterans, including the blackfly, Simulium sp., were abundant in the spring at all locations, less abundant in the summer, and nearly absent by fall. The mayfly, Stenonema sp., and stonefly, Isoperla sp., appeared only during fall of 1979 and 1980. In general, available data for artificial substrates are fragmentary. Populations were relatively homogeneous at all stations within a season, and indicative of relatively good water quality in the Cedar River. Natural variations, including changes in river flow, temperature, and substrate, could easily be responsible for the population shifts observed on the artificial substret.es. It is reasonable to conclude that station operation is not causing a major decline in riverine benthos populations. 3-30 l _ _ - ,_
Table T4 K1truiswerteltrate Muantares true lletter-Cessly Erplers Pixed Upstrean (14xttian 2) aral histresse (lentics 3) tron inv>=r Ansild r,iergy Center,1979 to lia) Nry./ sati er 43./Srpler 41./Samler Mr./StvTl er* M>./%wpler* H z./':ayles
- Apr 24-Jime 5 July ICHkqt 21 Sept 25-un 6 Apr 7-Nay 19 July H ept 2 Oct 74w 18 19N 1979 1979 1981 19fD 19fu tip- rkur Up- !\ur Ur hr Up- Thur Up- hi- Up- D u r-Strean Strem Strean Strean Strean Streas St refs _ _ St rean Strews Streme Strem Strean thiid. Rhaldreeli 7 Nais Mk 4T) 2fA 152 13 Naiseliidiin
~
19 NAisinciw}Eri !!4 ye 7 28 Owtor. aster diayhaun 16 Samaswi nr. S 7 21 S 10 2 Cvl is sp. A 10 A f j @ ia llavencn n H 4 27 H 7 3 gmwuispp. f P P f b L F 3 wwrella In<=y-hi s sp. %2 406 F. 51 14 E Cos<bleranter sp. R R Myrla n;p. 11 21 16 n>ta=vta asp. Ind.l. ityingmyrhida- 1. 27 38 47 L 20 3 Ityarnpp sp. O U. 25 41 0 y I!riropycheorris 'o 58 S T 205 al 51 135 25 S Via 44 3) w rotany_ia, einit.wm 26 29 T 97 41 14 H Hf ie_inwu_llav. 4 to 26 42 22 71 a 7 Ilytnewim idycr Osirino m s sgy. . gry,m_yg ngv. 17 49 N,surialiin sp. Rbmtaitarnus sp. (o 40 33 242 Pf.ata 7tarnos sp. I 2 Sinitiisa sp. 1,142 2 139 350 67 11 1 6 N. 2.142 73) 511 1% 222 M9 319 8 72 170 10)
- nenin.mte aily D5 serrent of total)
Sources: Modified from Reference Document Numbers 5,15,17. ESE, 1981.
3.4.1.3 Fish--Preoperational fishery data for the Cedar River in the vicinity of DAEC represented electroshock and hoop net collection data from June and November 1971. Additional preoperational data were obtained from the Fisheries Section of the Iowa State Conservation Commission. These data included electroshock and hoop net collections from areas upstream and downstream from DAEC during 1971 to 1973, and se 2 e collections from 1973.20 Operational fishery data were available from 1974 to 1980.0 ' 'I3~I7 The 1974 to 1978 data reflected inconsistencies in sampling schedule, gear, and effort. Data from 1979 and 1980 appeared to be more conclusive. Despite differences in preoperational and oparational fishery data, a reasonably sound assessment can be made of effects of station operation on the Cedar River fish community. Collections from 1971 were made "within several miles above and below the plant"3 by means of electroshocking, two cheese-baited hoop nets, and one unbaited hoop net. Fishery studies from 1974 to 1978 utilized various combinations of sampling gear (hoop nets, seines, and an electroshocking unit), which changed from season to season and year to year. Hoop nets were set for varying periods of time; on occasion they were set for a different number of days upstream and downstream of DAEC during the same sampling period. No description of the seines used in 1974 to 1978 was provided. Electroshocking was carried out for periods ranging from 10 to 90 minutes; occasionally, electroshocking was performed for dif ferent time periods upstream and downstream of DAEC during the same sampling period. In an effort to discern possible changes in fish abundance and species composition, given variability in the data, results from all collection methods have been converted to percentages. 3-32
.- _. - . - . .-- _ _ =- - .
f i Sampling methodology and data reporting were apparently more comprehensive in 1979 and 1980. The electrofishing unit was a ! boat-mounted boom shocker powered by a 230-volt, A.C., three phase generator. The shoreline was sampled for 20 minutes at each of two locations. One location was immediately downstream of the station's discharge canal, while the second was approximately 5 miles upstream, near Location 1 (see Figure 3-3). Shoreline seining was :onducted at l each location in 1 to 3 feet of water. A 6 x 25-foot seine with 0.25-inch bar mesh was used to make two hauls per location. A hoop net , 3 feet in diameter with 1-inch bar mesh netting, was deployed at each location for approximately 24 hours. Each hoop net was baited with l cheese, set overnight, and retrieved the following day. Approximately 30 species of fish were collected by electroshocking between 1971 and 1980 (see Table 3-5). Carpsuckers (river, quillback, and highfin) and carp were the dominant species in the great majority of the electroshock collections from both preoperational and operational monitoring studies. Carpsuckers comprised 14.5 percent to 81.8 percent of the collections from the i i preoperational study period, and from 28.6 percent to 83.3 percent of the collections from the operational study period. Carp abundances ranged from 13.3 percent to 32.7 percent before, and from 0.0 percent to { 44.4 percent during, station operation. Relative abundances of both carpsuckers and carp were similar in collections taken upstream and downstream from DAEC during most years. 1 Examination of electroshock data in search of evidence of thermal plume l attraction or avoidance by the numerically dominant species is I restricted by inconsistency of the collections. The data are insu f fi-cient to address the question of plume avoidance during the warmer 3-33
Tahle 1-5 Ph: 4eris sail l'cienit Santare of Finbesi Onllectel t'y F.lectrosierkiin l'patreau (laratim 2) mal Ruistreas (teratim 3) frun hise Arinl4 Fairryy Center,1971 en 1541
.h s e 19 71 ~ Mweder 1971 Kr"y lNf"""~~5epteder 1972 ~ Jiae 1973 (ktoier 19 73 "'"'~5 sty"I'9 74""~"~~ nctufer 19 f4~~~"id'e'5f5" "
UFtrecea h a.nuit s e:vs nuwtreas thutrean huwt rem tient reas h uistrean lfontre.ri Dwatretre Ifpitreme D wintremo tiptreme huustreses l'ptt r eas hus tre en
- m. 2 Hn. I %. I Rs. I Rs. I h. I N. I N. I M. Z Mi. Z N>. Mi. Z N. I Z h ! Ms. I owesel c.at tinh 4 6.6 5 9.4 1 1.0 2 1.R 2 7.4 2 0.7 1 0.2 1 1.7 riattent catliwi i 1.6 I 3.7 1 0.4 car ps.rker, 8 %).1 V1 49.2 22 14.5 74 71.2 % 61.4 49 49.5 69 61.6 IA 81.4 ~ 450 ~ (n.6 13 4R.I la 56.3 134 49.3 274 4R.I 62 69.7 12 u. 4 carn 1 11.) 17 27.9 9 17.0 23 22.1 14 32.7 18 I4.2 24 21.4 3 11.6 ~ 200 + 2 7.0 8 29.6 6 14.8 SR 32 A 177 31.1 22 24.1 12 44.4 nier==dh Milain I l.0 4 4.0 I v 0.5 2 0.7 0.5 7.2 3 2 1 3.7 Wiite crarpie 1 6.7 2 1.8 1 0.* I ~ 0.1 '3 I 3.1 II.I 1 0.2 n.rttern e t.w.e I - 6.7 7 li.5 3 5.7 I I.0 2 3.6 1 1.0 2 1.4 4 4.5 ~ 40 v 5.4 4 12.5 31 11.4 % 6.3 3 3.4 1 1.7 r.ilam enhwae 7 11.2 7 7.1 2 1.8 ~ 50 6.7 5 1.8
% lle.sl rv.hwee 61 11.I Mwt hrin pike Wilaye Blxk cram ic I l.6 1 0.9 cirrar.I alsst 3 20.0 1 1.6 5 9.4 I I .8 7 7.1 8 7.8 n.1 l'e..t i... ,
et, ciensi dii'er setti'i diiner Sutt ghietrT Steelc stor ehl.wr RI.ed.i e miisaw mite M*g 3 2.9 Y RI.erill I 0.2 u Ormea<p.etni a.r.fidi crec.i m..livi 2 I.R
%11 . th M , 1 0.9 2 6.1 4 1.5 14 2.5 t.orriv= =itti tw.s I l.0 13 11.1 I .1.1 5 1.8 Silver ret =w n- ,
E <repia sp. Wiite erker TurM. 15 100.0 61 Im.0 51 131.0 It% 100.2 % W .9 99 100.0 112 100.0 22 W.9 + 742 + W.9 27 99.9 12 Iro.1 272 len.0 SK) 100.2 M 100/s 27 W.9
Thie 3-5. N.<bers anl D remt /lbisalmre of FinIns 04 tectal by Ficctroninckir; lbatrene (locttim 2) ant Duwtrean (brttiivi 3) from nssie Arnild Energy Onter . 1971 to 19J1) (omtii.svl, Ne 2 of 3)
~
nt te Auv 4915 Miy 1916 May 1977 Agmt 1977 0;tsev 1917 .nsur 1918 Mwmber 1918 Mey 19 5 lpat reme DmiM r eme lipat rene D>matre re letre.se Dmist rean D>mst reae 11pstream D wigtre== Upstress Dim strean Iptreme D> mat r e.se letreas D> met r es ni. Z No. 1 No. % No. I No. I No. I No. % th. I No. I No. 1 mi. I m. % No. I tb. 2 No. I nemmel ce fie 5 18.4 4 13.1 2 11.8 2 14.3 2 15.4 G .0 <2.0 4 3.1 6 5.6 1 1.1 Flaile.it catri e cir ps.c le.r s 12 44.4 11 y>. 7 6 35.3 12 52.2 4 28.6 6 46.2 30.0 (0.0 60.0 iM 81 . 3 M 75.6 9) Gu 7.. I 25 65.8 (6 7.. I j cyp 10 37.0 13 41.3 5 29,4 6 26.1 4 28.6 3 23.1 15.0 15.0 15.0 6 3.8 3 3.3 21 16.2 to 9.3 1 2.6 Riptad h Imf falo 3 17.6 G .0 G 4 2.5 2 2.2 1 0.9 m ite cratrie M>rtiern rwhwar 2 6. 7 4 28.6 2 15.4 15.0 16.0 17.0 3 1.9 5 5.6 9 6.9 2 1.9 3 1.9 I I.I Qil.im re!!ee== Mvw tletal rnhw m= H wtlern pile = 1 5.9 G .0 2 2.2 mi le)s. Nxk cramie 1 2.6 (3rzici shal 18.0 5.0 (5.0 milice 1 mise == 1 1.1 N. roman shiiur t.p+t fin diirer 3 7.9 5 5.6 hl =himr 5 13.2 1 1.1
't m icolor Aim r N mtraw minew 5 5. 6 w Weite bagg i Nirgill y Ormge=tottnl enfinh 4.1 arccn enfie 1 Smillainth twig (1.0 1.arpwnsth hws 5 21.7 2.0 sil m ratanee 6 6.7 n trenig sp. 5 3.1 3 3.3 Et- erlier 12 7.5 9 10.0 6 4.6 9 8.3 itTrA 27 99.8 V 100.0 Il 100.0 %) 100.0 14 100.1 13 100.1 u 100.0 ~ 100.0 100.0 fro 100.1 4) 100.0 IM 100.0108100.1 D 100.0 #7 99.7
. _ _ - - - - - . _ . . . .- _ - . .. . _ _ _ ._,. . - . . . . ._ _ _ . _ - - - - . . . ~ . .. T*Ie 3-5. Madmen mit Ivrecit / tier:1ance of Fisten Gillects! by t2ectroshxking tystream (tocation 2) msi Gnnutream (locatices 3) froe Dune Arrold niergy Ontar,1971 to 19m (Omtinsal, I'Nte 1 of 3) Agingt 1979 M und e 1919 tiny 19:10 Septaber 19AD itwndw 19fD ipstrette Dnnstrean lipstress Ib matress, Ipstreme Ibmetreme Ipstreme himstre;se lipstreme Ib metreme No. I No. I No. I No. 1 - No. I No. I No. I No. I No. 2 No. 1 Gia el eat fish I 1. 3 2 2.0 f1.itical cat fidi 1 1.0 1 2. 7 , thrpsia-ber* 10 33.3 4 Vs.4 47 60.2 35 32.5 36 51.4 71 71 . 7 3 50.0 19 51.3 5 35.7 ar. 62.7 C,rp i 11.1 12 15.4 29 26.9 16 22.9 13 13.1 4 10.8 1 7.1 30 22.4 minuah hief fato 2 33.3 5 35.7 2 1.5 u.ite cramie Mwtlem redhrme 1 1.3 I O.9 nil <lm rettsrw 2 2.6 1 0.9 6 6.1 1 7.1 2 1.5 '
.%rtie=1 ralbrse 3 4.3 1 16.7 4 10.8 2 1.5 ttwttern rite I 1. 3 ~2 14.3 uitley. I 2. 7 Matic crarpie 1 8.3 L Cir.r.wt Ant i 8.3 1 2.7 nd Ite=1 miinw I 1.0 N. cmnen shinr r *5 4.6 r sintfin diirer 4 Wo.4 3 3.8 12 11.1 13 18.'6 I 1.0 5 13.5 13 9. 7 Sul shinnr 16 14.8 1 2. 7 scelcolar shirer 1 1.4 g ntmemic minaw 5 4.6 1 0.7 Wiite hi<g y niergit t niege.pittet antidi 5 6.4 1 0.9 1 1.4 I I.0 ann amfi4. 5 6.4 Teullwuth hiss 3 2.4 1 1.0 1.orr===eth hwi i 1.3 Silv-r ratuwne 2 2.0 1 -2.7
c13L' "r-Wdte acher 1 Ural. 12 W .9 9 99.0 78 100.0 108 100.0 M 100.0 99 99.9 6 100.0 37 99.9 14 M.9 ly. 10 0.0 Sources: Modified from Ref erence Document Numbers 3 through 5,13 through 17, 20.
ESE, 1981.
months. Considering thermal attraetton, abundances downstream from DAEC were substantially greater than abundances upstream in October 1974 and November 1980 (see Table 3-5) f or carpsucker s and carp. On Oc tobe r 28, 1975, Iowa State Conservation Commission personnel sighted a congregation of carp, with an average weight o f 0. 5 lb. each, and one channel catfish, at the station discharge.20 Based on the limited data available, it appears that carpsuckers and carp may tend to concentrate in the discharge plane during cold months, at 1 cast in some years. These fish would then be subject to enld shock in the event o f a sudden station shutdown. Carpsucker is not an tmportant commeretal or recreational resource in the Cedar River near DAEC; carp is the single most impor tant species taken by fishermen in the area.3 Given the relatively lomited extent of the thermal plune, it is probable that no serious, long-term harm would be inflicted on Cedar River fisheries due to sudden stat ton shutdown in winter. The remaining species in the electroshock collections were primartly m innows , sucker s , and sun fishes. Catfish are not ef ficiently sampled by electroshocking because they generally occur in deep water. The re f ore , the low nunbers collected are not representative of the actual abundances of catfish in the Cedar River. Other game fish collected tueluded northern pike, largemouth and smallmouth bass , and walleye. These species were collected sporadically d ur ing preoperational and operational sampling, and comprised only a snall fraction of the total catch. Hoop nets batted with cheese collected at least 12 species of fish between 1971 and 1980 (see Table 3-6). All species of carpsucker are combined for purposes of thts docunent. 3-37 i __
Tahle 3-6. Meilene el percent Mwastainw of Fisiws Q)llectni by Saital ikvp Nete lipstrene (facatim 2) mai huiatrem (Incatlan 3) frus fhaim Arml4 Nergy feetee.1971 to 19A0 Jiss= 1911 Mweder 1911 May 1912 Septerier 1972 . hee 1973 Octoher 1973 May 1914 .Asly N A Urst rem D u etteme Upatrem histrem Upntre m h attems h umtrem Upst rem
" ' . % No. % K3. 1 M3.
U mtre m Dumtrem Drotrem h atteme Upst r ese !W a tr e.g
% E3. Z M3 I Kr. 1 Mr. Z l . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mi. % N. 2 M2 1 E2. I ha. % Mi. % ! (hemel catfish 710 98.3 232 98.0 47 92.2 l13 91.9 m 100.0 1% Flatheat cat fid. A 3.5 5 2.0 4 31 . 2 81 5 98.8 70 51 .1 44 88.4 52 800.0 18 2 . 87.1 535 97.8 3.7 6 4.8 3 0.4 r_w n.cher e 0.4 I 0.A 2.0 3 1.4 1 1 5 4.1 50.0 rap 11 4.8 9 3.5 3 5.9 0.8 I 1 8 4.8 5 0.6 (o 43.8 7 11.9 8 1.5 1 50.0 1 50.0 13 7.9 - 6 4.4 nirfi.wh herlain 3 5.1 22 10.5 7 1.1 7 2.7 2 1.2 1 1.7 mite ernmie ! $0.0 1 0.1 Mwthern referne nildm res.w 7 0.8 2 1.0 1 0.2 Reallhemi 1 0.7 Mirthern pike Bi rk cramie mileye 114M. 110 101.0 255 100.0 St IrO.I 132 100.1 2 100.0 2 Iro.O M 100.0 165 99.9 831 100.0 137 100.0 59 100.1 52 100.0 2W 100.0 551 100.1 FEE =v 19Fi Jtse 1975 July 1915 .bly 1976 Ntwerter DI8 Pby 1919 Mwerfer $19 y I'mt rem n u ntrecre Umtre m Dumt rem Upst rem hat rem l'pst rem nustrem l'patreas i No. No. 1 Upstrem nuntreau hntram u % Rs. Z K2. Z n). Z Ho. I No. 1 No. I nr. % N. Z No. 1 os Ms. 1 Nort est ridi 178 R3.0 292 92.1 8 10.0 24 85.7 5 50.0 154 95.1 80 90.9 90 87.4 20.0 Flathcal estlidi 3 1.5 5 1.6 1 10.0 1 0.6 1 1.1 1 carm rbers 11 6.5 1 20.0 1 31.3 2 7.1 3 30.0 1 0.6 4 4.5 7 6.8 4 rarp 14 4.4 10.0 1 100.0 2 43.0 1 50.0 1 13.1 1 3.6 2 2.3 4 3.9 Rir:nsith inif f alo 2 0.6 m ite cremie I l.1 2 1.9 M,rthem ronvw ( 1.0 1 0.3 1 3.6 1 10.0 3 t.9 Coldm reR=wae L 20.0 hellhcal 3 0.9 1 31.3 tbr tfenn pike 91xk tramie 1 50.0 i 10.0 3 1.9 Wallen 1T7tM. 200 100.0 317 99.9 10 100.0 2R 100.0 10 100.0 162 100.1 88 99.9 103 100.0 4 101.0 5 100.0 2 100.0 3 97.9
. ..._. ,w .. _. ,. - . - - . . - , - . .. . -. - -. . . . -
T.+1e 3 4. Ms ters ad Iveced Asilaere of Fishrs (bilectal by Raltal Hop t>tn IPtreau (locatim 2) an! Dwetrean (incetion 3) fran neue Arviold thergy Oviter,1971 to 19fD (Ontinied, hge 2 of 2) May 19fu regeder 49tn Mweder 193) ! IMtre.n . Dentrene Upgtreme !bwistrema Upstr ene Ibuiat reau No. % fk). % No. % No. 1 No. % No. % l l On ict cat fish I Flatical cat fidi Cire c6cr e i IfX).O 6 M.7 1 100.0 l Cup flir;= =dfi inf fato Wiite cramie N>rtiern rothyw (bl.im tallev=? Nilbral Rwelern pike I 18.1 Glack cramie 2 22.2 uit Ieyrt 2 100.0 1Uml. I IfD.0 0 0 2 100.0 9 100.0 1 800.0 0 0 W I g Sources: Modifled from Refarence Document Numbers 3 through 5, 13 through 17, 20. ESE,-1981. ; l l i i i l - .
~ _ . . _ - - - . - _.- . . . -. . - _ . _. - . . _ ._ _ . . _
U j Channel catfish was the dominant species caught in hoop nets set l upttream and downstream from DAEC in all of the preoperational i collections except one. In May 1972, only four fish were collected from j the river, none of which were channel catfish. This species dominated 1 operational hoop net collections made from 1974 to 1976, accounting for l 50 to 100 percent of the total individuals caught. No hoop net data ] were available for 1977. From 1978 to 1980, a total of only 27 fish was j collected by hoop nets. Only one of thesa was a. channel catfish.
- io No clear correlations were found between the effects of station operation and hoop net collections of channel catfish. The data are too l inconsistent to allow an examination for persistent trends, but it
} appears that large numbers of these fish are not attracted to the j thermal plume in the fall, nor do they avoid it during the warmer i j months. The paucity of channel catfish in hoop net collections from 1978 to 1980 reflects the low numbers of all species captured in the
; hoop r "s during those years. Changes in abundance of channel catfish were as p cipitous during preoperational studies as during operational f studies, and were probably due to natural environmental factors and the i ! shortcomings of this type of fishing gear, rather than to station-I associated ef fects. Hoop nets require a strong, unidirectional current i.
and expert setting in the proper location to be ef fective samplers. The next most abundant species collected by hoop nets from the Cedar River upstream and downstream from DAEC were flathead catfish, carpsuckers, and carp (see Table 3-6). During most sampling efforts, these were much less numerous than channel catfish. The low abundances of these species, combined with the irregularity of the collections, , preclude any assessment of station-induced effects. Seine collections were sporadic prior to 1979. The only preoperational period for which data are available from areas upstream and downstream 4 i t i i 3-40
. - _ . _ _ -_.4-. .-m,- ...-,v-- ----r- - - . - - - *- ---"--~*----*'+-*m--**~--*S' -
* - ' ' ' " ~ ~ - - ^ ' " ' + ' ' * *"' " ' ~ ' '- ~ ~ '
!L from DAEC is November 1971. Operational seine samples were taken once during 1974 and 1975, and not at all during 1976 to 1978. Seine l 1
I collections were made during spring, summer, and fall of 1979 and 1980. ' A total of 34 species was collected by seir.e between 1971 and 1980 , j (see Table 3-7). Due to inconsistencies in data reporting, all species , of carpsuckers were considered here as a group, i 4 Minnows and shiners were the dominant groups in all of the seine 6 samples. Carpsuckers were third in importance, but were much less i numerous than the first two groups. The spotfin shiner was the most abundant species overall, followed by the sand shiner and the bigmouth 4 shiner. 1 A comparison of upstream and downstream seine collections during a preoperational conditions is possible only for November 1971. Total , j numbers of fish collected were similar (see Table 3-7), but species composition was different. The seine taken upstream from DAEC was i dominated by sand shiners, carpsuckers, and channel catfish; the sample downstream from DAEC had spotfin shiners as 78.9 percent of its total. The upstream seine from November 1971 was the only seine collection to produce a large number of channel catfish. 4 ! Patterns of total abundance in samples from upstream and downstream of DAEC during the different seasons do not indicate avoidance of the i discharge plume during warm months or attraction during cold months. l l Upstream versus down;tream abundances did not vary by more than a factor of about two in July 1974 a.d 1975, and September 1979. In September 1980, 229 fish were seined downstream from DAEC (of which 213 were spotfin shiners), while only 4 were caught upstream from the station. The discharge water temperature was 27.0*C at that time.17 The downstream seining was done immediately below the discharge; the water temperature and chemical cet a at that point were clearly within the tolerance limits of the spotfin shiner. 3-41
g" n m--n m e e e A a s Aaaf a d a d g 2 , C j e enny - m - G ge e eeeCe e e,
,I" t d d aa d R'a .: 8 as .
1 mb +
}j n ~~mgn-e p n
k I ' " * * ~ tu * #. l e .
~
- e R e
~ 8 E er
} 2 Cfk $ l 3 I om~ c. t 1t$" Afd
- 8 4 5 4$
b h$ "*" Q m t*
- y G ne e n eeeeem eem
, c da a a QdAaga ada g.
e R!j
-c
~e m a g-emgn -m Q
J w en mocem e e,
- EE" dA d ~~
t t w e dm Ad 6 8 j e -
-li "a g"m- -
E 4 is
-. e e o S kn s
M d d A e #. 5 :. 8
. 05j ea e
- ~
g 3 J. 3
- ~ e ~ m e~ ~ -:
i E s
'5 65 " A e J A adn d - 8 ! t
- b. b 21 R "A A a g
'E ~ c. m m~ e aeee mo *.
- l" ado dd A Jada da g
- o m mn u
.!- $&j 5 en- '-~ - gegg -m E
- e w oe m n ~ ~en-m m 1
5
- 4 5.. " a d.-
o a a dAAdd-nn. a 8 3
$p EI ~g - -
- 3EER- -
E L
- e m ~ ~ < e 3 3. J
- a 8 y .g. " J.
. - g n f #
.I
-.e., d E-2 m ~ e e e.
W
=
6 .m o ~ e c ce5" d a S-
- 8 C -
- v. t c 1y .
g 4&E e e 3 - p
$ E e e e-eee- e
?e t" & Aaf4Aa 8
* =v -
~ -
Eji M
- g '.: g * $
f }R" mm eomeemce daad6 Add e, , e r e ns a d.
-e e 8 i *fi.
%3 "A-""O** -
m a p . F - 1 If 3I :
- I
.? a g i .eE Ir 'I i E l' 2 = .r e w f .s a ! 'i vni.:.E
- E tt 51
?. y* }=
t E e . r. t 5.! g 2 e ., s *g:[
?y* .y :g,5 s .e i.g.:.
E 4_ g . Eg 4 J E w 5-2l:w w "2 7 _[ f .5 ,=, .i234: E w, "e"g it > 8 e "D t .h :i
~.
- s _{ -
{ [ h % % I _j ,d gs u t U T g7E t
-=c Obq
. s 4
h o
- .g l; - -3 aJ d.c y{ -{ u 3 r h A c d 6 s s 6 2 2 U d d x* k a d r I' %suSAe c F[&
, 3-42
T,6te 3-7. Neibers mil IVrtet A*tralmre of Fidra (bilectal by reices lp*treme (lccatim 2) ed Dnentreme (Irzstim 3) frue pne Arr.old niergy Oviter,1971 to 198) (thselemt, P.y 2 of 2) ttiy 19N Segtevber l9tt) Mwnde 19tU Ipatreas Dwaistrean lystrene Ibmstre.in 11pstrean Ibmarcan No. 1 No. 1 No. I No. I No. I No. I n aert catfidi 8 8.3 1 0.2 2 6.9 cirp=a l=-rs 1 1.0 1 0.2 1 25.0 4 1.7 20 7.1 cn Wiite cragpie 1 0.2 N e ttens rall=w e (bl4vi rellswm* N w t hem pi1=* N ack crappie i 1.0 Cirract sh.tl Fattral emiisow I 0.4 nelltral minen, 6 1.2 7 3.1 1 0.4 N.cvamun Wiiser
@t fin diirer 7) #3.0 412 Ks.9 1 25.0 213 91.0 241 E.1 23 79.3 nin*=dh shierr 7 1.4 3 10.3 sw.I diierr 16 3.2 6 2.1 1 3.4 Riesitmpe Miierr Itnerald dieser Wiite han, w Nergill Willeye
[ w .liinviy dJrter Ormsynp>t t al sin fidi i 1.0 3 0. 6 5 2.2 nmi mnfidi 2 2.1 3 0.f. 1 25.0 9aallaundh h.ss, 1 0.2 1 E5.0-Rosyf at shierr Braggy mienna, 3 0.6 Gsanni shiser 2 0.4 Steelentor disser 9 l.R U Bliettum snissema 9 9.4 16 3.2 Il 3.9 Creek club l 0.2 Silver ralmirne 1 0.2
% wtfral unt w e I l.0 wrAs, v, v0 4 229 2m 29 Sources: Modified from Reference Document Niimbers 3 through 5, 13 through 17, 20.
ESE, 1981.
4
- In November 1979, nearly twice as m
- ny specimens ware sained upstream )
from DAEC as compared to downstream, primarily due to'the large number i of sand shiners in the upstream sample. In November 1980, nearly 10 times as many fish were collected upstream as compared to downstream. 1 This was due to a large number of spotfin shiners collected upstream. Based on these two collections, it does not appear that fish are attracted to the DAEC thermal plume in the fall. Since no seine colle:tions were taken in winter, it can only be speculated, based on
, other cases, that thermal plume attraction could occur during that
- time.
Considering electroshock, hoop net, and seine collections together, there is no indication of major impacts on Cedar River fish populations l in the vicinity of DAEC as the result of station discharge. Hoop net collections and unpubli.aed data from the Iowa State Conservation Commission indicated that carp and carpsuckers may concentrate near the discharge in fall. There was no indication of plume avoidance during i the summer.
-3.4.2 Entrainment Studies to assess the numbers of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton taken into the closed cycle cooling system of DAEC were conducted three times yearly during 1974 and 1975, and four times yearly during 1976 through 1980. The 1974 and June 1975 collections were made using a Kemmerer sampler placed just forward of the intake structure.
The 10 liters of water collected in this way were filtered through a plankton net. This method is inefficient for capturing fish eggs and larvae. From July 1975 through 1978, phytoplankton enumerations were made on grab samples taken at the intake structure, and zooplankton and ichthyoplankton analyses were made on water samples taken with plankton i and drift nets. Measurements of current velocity at the point where the nets were fished were used to calculate the volume of water filtered for each sample. I . I j 3-44
In 1979 and 1980, samples to determine entrained phytoplankton species composition, abundance and chlorophyll j! concentration were collected from the intake location using a 6-liter Kemmerer or Van Dorn water s ample r. Samples for taxonomic analysis were preserved in 1.0 percent Lugol's solution. Samples for chlorophyll a analysis were placed on ice and returned to the laboratory. 7 9 ankton 1 entrainment was studied during 1979 and 1980 by placing a 30-cm diameter, 64-micron mesh net near the intake for a measured time period and using the current velocity to calculate the volume filtered. Samples were preserved in 5 percent buf fered Formalin. Ichthyoplankton entrainment samples for 1979 and 1980 were taken adjacent to the intake bar grill using a 0.5 m diameter, 571-micron mesh plankton net, fished for 5 to 10 minutes near the surface and near the bottom. A General Oceani Model 2030 digital flowmeter mounted in the net mouth was used to measure the volume of water filtered. Samples were preserved in Formalin. Laboratory methods were not described for the 1974 to 1978 entcainment s t ud ie s . In 1979 and 1980, phytoplankton species composit'lon and abundance were determined using the method previously described (see subsection 3.4.1.1). Chlorophyll ji determinations were performed on three 100-m1 subsamples of each unpreserved phytoplankton sample. The subsamples were filtered through Whatman GF/C glass fiber filters on a thin layer of MgC03 , eluted for at least 24 hours with 90 percent . ( acetone, and subject to ultrasonic disruption. The subsamples were then centrifuged and their fluorescence determined before and af ter the... addition of IN HC1. s. Zooplankton samples were subsampled, and a minimum of two subs ~ampics was analyzed for each sample to ensure that at least 30i organisms were l counted and identified. Subsamples were examined in a gridded Petri dish or modified Bogorov chamber with a Bausch and Lomb stereozoom l l l m 3-45
^
, w
- 3 [ s- ,
'1
% 3 %
dissecting microscope. Organisse requiring further examination we.re mounted;on 41 ass s1Edes' and observed with a Leitz SM Lux research microscope. Phytoplankton populations, as estimated from samples collected in front of the intake were, as expected, similar to those collected during the biweekly monitoring program (described in subsection 3.4.1.1). Descriptions of the communities vill not be repeated here. The portion of the Cedar River flow entering the DAEC intake (assuming an intake volume of 24.5 cfs) ranged from a high of 6 percent during extremely low
'~
flow conditions in February 1977,15 to less than 1 percent on several occ ui,ons. Entraining these relatively small portions of the Cedar River phvtoplankton community would not be expected to have any noticeable effects en these populations. The most critical period during the year for phytoplankton utilization is spricg and early summer, when these microscopic algae are necessary food itemss for rapidly growing zooplankton populations, which are, in
~
turn, necessary food items fort newly-hatched fish larvae. However, this
. is also the time of the year when Cedar River flows are highest,3 and,
, therefore,,lhe smallest percentages of the flow are taken into the station. This is additional evidence that entrainment of phytoplankton is Tot a serious problem at DAEC. ,
.~ .
7,ooplankton collection '.echniques and data reporting were inconsistent through the operational, years. Where possible, numbers were standard-ired to units per cubic meter (see Table 3-8). A wide range of abun-dances was found, from a low of less than 1 organism /m3 in September s 1970, to a high of 82,000/m3 in May 1980. Zooplankton is normally found to be distributed in patches, the result of both physical factors in the aquatic enviroraent and biological characteristics of the organisms. C
, ~
s s j g n
- 3-46 7
- - - - - y
e-
- %- E * -
,i a 4
- x =
E. e e
$ 6 .. P % N N N T P, E, e
- ~ =
. .t
~
c E i y C
-c F-g g g l t e g -" , -
1
- k } " *.
E % m -
; , , 4
, ~
- e- e d
M M C h N w p *
- 8 % % %
E n A a n - a a w w n 5 - f - *
- - . e ".
7 $
$ w
% % -e T
- %- S e
g ,e , y g u u a = x 7 % e g 4 -
- 3 b " "
d w E I j N W m ,- T E "e- "e e Y sw N N n C o C
~ ~
y *
. W W k N g
- i ',b $ k f
- c.
t 4 =
- n W f I
$ L e w e o e g g
.5 8 % %
n S - e ~
~
g 4 .,
.V = - = .
L E e e t % % %
. a s - a - -
" c . 4 s' = A 4 C .E w $ e E E .: , 4 t. g g- 5
. e S .x n n u -
9 a
$s k C N == 9 <
g. t - a e'
= 4 4 m
! $ M W 1 5 a c - o e - - .
c. 6 a e m 5 = 0 R , e C ! e* ~
'n %. { J
.. ft w "e "c "o- "c i ce y
g y ,- - -= w
} m u u u g Q w g N N + e .D
.m 7~
O [ t 2 K R 5
* , 1 -
- t. g e %
% - 3 : y y w w a g ,, 4 * " *
- c e
~
u 5 - a Q O c % D R
- A T %-
, g-a 1 Q o
Y o w g c
- % n n + y*
& y a e a
- i o e p w n w
@ d c. 3 3 0
.! E %
~
= F = M E ,
"e- "e- -
1 a g a m - m. u. E! e g , 6 - N O
. u o 4 m. -. a u .
- E y-4 h%
~
r= e r* e $ T CO cm
'1*# E - ~
p T M e4 i P. T-m -
-=
h J lT M
=
M M a
) i m. <* < i ~~ 2 ~ < mM OM e e 4 4 2: N d '5
- e. "
2 k F
. -r . l.. . . _i -. .
e b
- Y E g1f, Ea ag E
- > 5 O i a G 5 -[E &
t E . l
.;C e
u m 2-47
Taking single samples during each season does not permit an estimate of l variations in zooplankten concentration to be calculated. Variations in sampling techniques, combined with normal patchiness and collection of a single sample per season, make it dif ficult to attempt an assessment of station effects on Cedar River zooplankton populations. However, statements made previously concerning reasons for consider'.ng station impacts on phytoplankton to be minimal apply equally for the zooplankton community. No serious ef fects on zcoplankton populations would be expected as the result of DAEC operation. Sampling efforts in front of the station intake to assess numbers of fish eggs and larvae entrained produced a total of 3 eggs and 13 larvae in the years from 1974 to 1980. Three unidentified fish eggs were found in 2,676 liters of water filtered in May 1976; a single cyprinid larva wps found in 7,641 liters of water filtered in July 1978; 11 sucker larvae were found in May 1979; and a single carp larva was found in August 1979. These data could lead to an underestimate of ichthyoplankton entrainment at DAEC. Most freshwater fish in the northern United States breed in spring and summer. Thus, only one or two of the quarterly ichthyoplankton samples each year could be expected to catch any fish eggs or larvae. In order to properly assess possible entrainment, samples should have been taken at closely spaced intervals during the spawning season. Sampling methodology was not fully described for 1974 to 1978, and it is possible that the gear and/or fishing methods used were not effective ichthyoplankton collectors. Despite the shortcomings of the sampling prograci, it seems likely that no serious damage is done to the Cedar River ichthyoplankton by the operation of DAEC. During the spawning season in spring and summer, the Cedar River flows are usually at a yearly maximum, and thus the 3-48
smallest yearly percentages of the total flow are taken into the 1 l station. This would reduce the probability of entrainment of fish eggs 1 or larvae. In addition, most of the fishes found in the Cedar River deposit their aegatively buoyant eggs on spawning beds, so they would be highly unlikely to be entrained by the station intake. Some sunfisbes, catfishes, and minnows guard the young fry as well as the eggs. Larvae of these species would not be very susceptible to entrainment, since they would not normally be floating freely in the water column. 3.4.3 Impingement Daily counts of fish (and, infrequently, other organisms) collected in the trash basket were made by station personnel beginning in January 1975 through 1980. Each daily count represented the number of fish impinged over a 24-hour period. On four dates each ye9r, 24-hour trash basket counts were made. Fish collected at these times were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, weiched, and measured. Yearly totals of fish collected in the trash basket ranged from a low of 136 specimens during 1975 to a high of 651 specimens during 1977 (see Table 3-9). The annual mean was 402 fish for 1975 to 1980. Of the limited number of specimens identified, the majority were young-of-the-year channel cat fish. The remainder were predominantly shiners and minnows. A total of at least 22 species was collected through 1980. For the years 1975 to 1978, the only seasonal impingement data available are the quarterly trash basket counts (see Table 3-9). There appears to be a trend for the majority of impingement to occur during the first and last sampling episode in each year. This would be expected as a result of fish being attracted to the vicinity of the station by the heated effluent during the colder months. Fish could be susceptible to impingement during periods when warm discharge water is released at the intake area to prevent icing cf the trash rack and screens. Without measurements of the deicing plume, however, this potential source of impingement must be considered speculative. 3-49
l 1 2 A-4 g ,- -e 4 c. ae m = 1~ N 2 c N W e** O W we - - n 4=
>C
~
e E O e ' T ,= E w
%K~
la w
- Q C %2 e -
T YE *M e- 3e
, ==
a tL * ~ v r 2 2 i N 2 - e - eE - 4 1 . I ~2 g EE o
- s. 4 e
a C
.e., ie E N M C Vs Y -
$Y **
.c. -
YE h3 Y
- e
~$ C- - -
}G se e - e g
a e E -e N e
*=
gg - S 4 E 2e E ,S -
. E~
t
- e
( "I n - M- - e EC k 5
' 1e 49 RA-1A v-4 "O ~ - m - -
5 gRS I d P
~ e S $m O
-E c 4 5
; ~C *
- C ge- -
.I- C
-e a
k {h-m N s
*C = m c. -
-E gg - n 4
?
. 7I @
-y- - N
- e- R I t -
6 - e . a l 1 .
' 1 4, -(k .:i- s.t - r -g .1 l . .I y 3 . ': t i, E v: .l; 1 - -
i l -43
- 7 - w ; 1 3 .
- s. ,.1' 5 c y c5 m
!Tw T. 1, J am, (,.2e m ,: l7 I. .gI. sg=l I I ~ i -- 1 -
*, -e
-b[ , I sI t,l I =1r ,1 J:s. I * [a.. I. f Ok.,1 f , c - -e YE r
, i s - -
1 ; ~ f.3: s E ~; IA j , i
'I f ;j: hd d 2 511k[i A A z[i! 3.O5 5 c 5 E 2 5 -{ de E 3-50
Tcdle 1-9 rechere if Fi4s a,1 Ohet Ogstigas lapig,11 at Duse Arnold Mergy Qister,1974 to 19PO, mi Gillectal ly Statim Nrmiswl arri Mwiravemtal Osutoltsite (Ontirusuf, rg;c 2 of 2) F.4 20 toy 21 Aq 23 Nw 21 ? >t al Feb 20 May 19 Trp 4 Nw 19 Tit al 1919 1979 1979 1919 1979 iM) IMI 19 % NM 19M mww l rat fidi ! 6 17 F1mlest cit ligt. 1 Cirp Carsw.rher e Rigendh tmlfato Wiite ma le-r llarnytril rlwh Pkitropio 99 Finrghales prp. fil mtnne? diirrr Swtfin diintr 1 7 Sml wiiw 1 3 niss=34h diirer I
%eitmw mimw I thec
.Hany darter Lenite crappie W Riirgill b &cm anfinh 3
lblicyc Sen t iventti h.m IArgnenth h.tsg thiimtifint fish leptpl fr.y Oryfi ve raintal tisrtle Std> total Fidi 0 0 12 442* 29 0 0 1 0 20l* 1 TRAL. FI'll 45$f 21)f e Armal total of fidi collertal frne the tradi basket by stat im perm ==wl . 1 Aunt total of fidi oillectal frm tie tradi bade t by station.p rsavel g4im fish collettal by omsultete. Sources: Modified from Reference Doewaent Numbers 4, 5, 13 through 17. ESE, 1981.
Daily records of fish impingement at DAEC were available for 1979 and 1980 (see Tables 3-10 and 3-11). Impingement rates tend to increase from November through February or March, and then to decline as water temperatures increase. Thermal attraction is the probable cause for this tendency. It does not appear that large numbers of fish are impinged by DAEC. Factors such as the relatively small volume of intake water needed by the closed-cycle cooling system and the low intake velocity minimize impingement of Cedar River fishes. It is probable that the portion of the local fish population lost due to impingement does not comprise a significant fraction of the standing stock. 3.4.4 Fish Cage Studies Studies to examine the effects of blowdown discharge from DAEC on native fish were conducted once during each summer from 1974 to 1980. Channel catfish obtained from the Cedar River, Coralville Reservoir, or a commercial supplier were used every year except 1977, when carpsuckers were used. Between 5 and 10 fish were placed in each of three live boxes located immediately upstream from the intake structure, immediately downstream from the discharge and in the discharge canal. The cages were monitored for 48 to 51 hours. In 1979 and 1980, the fish were acclimated overnight in the quiet water above DAEC, prior to placement in the cages, to assure that only the more vigorous individuals were used in the experiments. It is not known whether or not fish were acclimated in the 1974 to 1978 studies. Water temperatures at the three locations were monitored during the studies in all years. Dissolved oxygen was monitored during the 1974 to 1978 fish cage studies. Measurable residual chlorine was present in the discharge canal and at the downstream fish cage location only during the 1974 study. In the other years, either chlorination of the cooling water was not occurring during the fish cage studies or chlorine was not measured. 3-57 _
I Table 3-10. Daily Ntabers of Fish Impinged at Duane Armld Energy Center, January to Decouber 1979 Day of the Mxith Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug* Sep Oct Novt Dec Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 8 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 C 4 5 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 6 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 17 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 15 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 20 0 16 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 10 0 17 0 4 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 18 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 20 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 21 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 3 0 12 13 22 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 24 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 25 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 26 0 7 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 28 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 12 ( 29 0 2 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 30 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 9 2 31 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 l 1 URAL 0 99 78 3'+ 9 2 13 35 25 10 58 92 455 j
- One fidi was collectal by consultant yrsonnel on 23 August i t Twelve fish wre mllected by consultant personnel m 21 Rm+er.
I Sources: Malifial fran Reference Docunent Nunber 5. l ESE, 1981. 3-53 l
Table 3-11. Daily Ntabers of Fish In: pinged at Duane Armld Energy Center, January in Decembe; 1980 ~ Day of the Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 7 29 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 1 0 12 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 7 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 9 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 28 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 6 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 'O 1 0 7 19 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 Ok 0 0 20 0 29* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 24 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 16 25 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 6 26 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 17 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 28 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IUTAL M 71 0 5 7 5 0 6 6 5 15 26 230
- Dates that impingement collections were raade by consultant personnel.
i Sources: Modified frcra Reference Dcctment Ntober 17. ESE, 1981. 3-54
1 l l The results of the fish cage studies from 1974 to 1980 (see Table 3-12) do not furnish sufficient information for an assessment of the effects of blowdown discharge on Cedar River fishes. It was stated several times in the annual environmental operating reports that the dorsal and pectoral spines of the catfish were caught and broken in the mesh of the cages. Thus, the stress of captivity for this species may have been responsible for the observed mortality, rather than any station-induced effect. The mortality observed at the upstream location in the majority of the studies seems to indicate that a factor (s) unrelated to station operations was killing the catfish. In August 1977, the carpsuckers used in the fish cage study showed high mortality in the discharge canal. Chlorination of the DAEC cooling system had not occurred for several days prior to the study. Maximum etT value between the upstream station and the discharge canal was 8.0*C, and the maximum water temperature in the discharge canal was 28.0*C. Dissolved oxygen values reached a minimum of 5.5 mg/l in the discharge canal. Some aspect of the discharge canal environment was apparently lethal to the carpsuckers, but it did not occur at the downstream station. Also, there was 40 percent mortality at the upstream station. Given the experimental protocol, there is no way to judge which factor (s) was responsible for the high mortality in the discharge canal. In summary, the use of possibly inappropriate fish species, small number i of individuals used, low number of experiments, and the inability to examine physical factors independently of one another, do not permit an assessment of blowdown discharge effects on the fish community of the Cedar River. l l l f 3-55 1
m t n2 g ij :RL 24'A';
- s I L 1 c- 4ml onn%==R'A' E
A 5
,hs o :::: 'A'A
'a 11 z3 oooessa'R'S e s L
[ 13 4 cl. oooooooioee
,}35 ooooooosoog ococcocoooo sl d*
so L i.g 2 :! ooooooooooo g a.
)
z
}:i -
ooooooooooo 3 . s 5 s tA i0 oRRRSS288 88 - --
.c a
=
. o f
Y
. Lf It oooooooot oc u
~
b e. a Lt a - m t 2 " c ;b g *ooRRRSS'SS . 1
- E l j ooooooggegg e 23 u
- : o o - e
% LE 3 7 13
, d.
oooooosa'gs g g d r E t.
~
E i g
}*- ooooooegigg -
1 o
= 5 e Z 1 V 11 o o L
g $" i 33 **2S'SS C c Z. - o t C
" ' u s L! c 7 2 ooooooooegg g c n d ;. -y gg uo 6 .,
W e
}g 6 cocooopgagg
*". T. y t ri 8
- . e 2 " o s
4
.f. 0$ o*o29RR'SR *[U hw
- t. v &
i.t
. - c t
gme ce 2* E
- f. , 2 L! cocooggige og 0. 7 w
Sc :. -5 + . I 4 E* 7W cgIw om
- A{-. coococooo. .c ~
i h g
~
5
. b3
- S O . -
u A -j {b g
' ce=ggggggg5g ;g =
5 l .I 5C d 3-56
A .--- a . - _~.a.- -- _ a a n - 4 - s - m I l I I 4 e 1 4.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS i
)
I l I t i l
1 l 4.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) does not appise to cause any major, long-term changes in populations of phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, or fish in tne Cedar River. This judgement must be tempered with the fact that much of the data collection and reporting for 1974 to 1978 was inconsistent and of ten deficient. Despite this circumstance, it is expected that major catastrophic effects on the aquatic biota due to station effects would have been detected by the monitoring program. The following summary is provided for each trophic level. Phytoplankton and Periphyton The diatoms Cyclotella, Nitzschia, and Stephanodiscus invisitatus were the dominant phytoplankton organisms present during the 1974 to 1980 monitoring studies. Unidentified flagellates, several species of green algae, and blue green algae were also common. Peak algal abundances generally occurred during the summer months , but cell concentrations were highly dependent upon the volume of the Cedar River flow. Species lists and abundances from periphyton samples were generally similar upstream and downstream from DAEC. Biomass differences between locations were generally small and not attributable to station effects. Within the bounds of the large natural seasonal and spatial variability of the phytoplankton, no changes occurred in the phytoplankton community that could be attributed to the effects of station operation. e Zooplankton Zooplankton populations were not sampled in a manner consistent enough to reveal any systematic variations that might be caused by DAEC operations. This would be difficult in any case, due to the normally patchy distribution of these organisms. However, in view of the small percentage of the total volume of Cedar River water utilized by DAEC, and the short generation times of zooplankton, it is probable that no ! consequential damage is done to the sooplankton connunity by station operations. 4-1
Bentric Macroinvertebrates Almost no benthic organisms were collected from 1974 to 1978. The pau-city of benthos was probably due to sampling in areas of unstable sands. Ponar collections from 1979 and 1980 yielded much greater abundances, probably because an ef fort was made to sample in areas with a greater percentage of silt and clay. A turbellarian species and species of chironomid larvae vere dominant organisms in 1979 and 19ED. Differences in species composition and abundance upstream and downstream of DAEC were probably due to sediment characteristics and not station effects. i Fish The blowdown discharge from DAEC does not form a barrier to fish movement in the Cedar River. Considering electroshock, hoop net, and seine collections together, there is no indication of major impacts on Cedar River fish populations. There were some indications that carp and carpsuckers may concentrate near the discharge durin3 the fall. j Collections during the winter would be necessary to confirm thermal attraction, and to decide whether or not cold shock is a potential problem. However, based on experience gained from other stations, the possibilities exist for both attraction and cold shock. The sampling conducted in front of the intake to estimate ichthyoplankton entrainment was insufficient to properly assess this j potential station effect. However, due to the low percentage of the total Cedar River vo'tume taken into the plant during the spawning i season, and the breeding habits of the majority of the native fishes, it , is probable that only a very small fraction of Cedar River fish eggs and larvae is entrained by DAEC. Fish cage studies were not performed in n manner which would allow an assessment of blowdown discharge ef fects on the fish community of the Cedar River, i i Daily counts of fish collected in the trash basket were made from 1975 through 1980. A mean of 402 fish r .r year was impinged during those years. Most of the impinged specimens were not identified.
- Young-of-the-year channel catfish comprised the majority of the identified individuals. Impingement rates tended to increase during the colder months, probably due to thermal attraction.
, 4-2 l
-' M , ,
e 4 4 a i
)
i f REFERENCES I l t i I i r 4 4 1 I I k p _u.- -. g. w.- w ,,y*y---.+r-m79.-,.,. . pw w .+- -...-c--.---y;w ymg m yp-. pi g - ,, g, r
REFERENCES
- 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Guidance for Determining Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. Section 316-b, P.L. 92-500.
- 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. 316-a Technical Guidance--Thermal Discharges. Water Planning Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials.
- 3. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Duane Arnold Energy Center.
Docket No. 50-331. United States Atomic Energy Commission (NRC), Directorate of Licensing.
- 4. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company. 1975. Semi-annual Operating Report. July 1,1974 to December 31, 1974. Duane Arnold Energy Center, Unit I. NRC Docket No. 50-331.
- 5. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company. 1980. Duane Arnold Energy Center, Cedar River Operational Ecological Study. January through December 1979. NRC Docket No. 50-331.
- 6. Omaha Public Power District. 1978. Fort Calhoun Station, Ubit 1, Five Year Report. A Summary of Environmental Study Papers Conducted in Compliance with Appendix B to Operating License DPR-40.
- 7. Speakmen, J .N. , and Krenkal, P.A. 1972. Quantification of the Effects of Rate of Temperature Change on Aquatic Life. Water Res. 6(11):1283-1290.
- 8. Morgan, R.P. III, and Carpenter, E.J. 1978. Biocides. Ijl: Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, pages 95-134.
J.R. Schubel e.nd B.C. Marcy, Jr. , Editors. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
- 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S., Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
256 pages.
- 10. Letter from L. Liu, Iowa Electric Light and Power Company to E.G. Case, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; March 29, 1978.
- 11. Memorandum from G. Lear, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to T.A. Ippolito, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I 1 l l l l l 1
- 12. Amendment No. 53 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 for the Duane Arnold Energy Center; Docket No. 50-331.
- 13. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company. 1976. Semi-ann ual Operating Report. July 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975. Duane Arnold Energy Center, Unit 1. NRC Docket No. 50-331.
l 14. Iowa Elec tric Light and Power Company. 1977. . Duane Arnold Energy ] Center Operational Ecological Study: An n ual Re po r t . January 1976 to December 1976. NRC Docket No. 50-331.
- 15. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company. 1978. Duane Arnold Energy Center, Cedar River Operational Ecological Study: Annual Report .
January 1977 to December 1977. NRC Docket No. 50-331. 16 Iowa Elec tric Light and Power Campany. 1979 Duane Arnold Energy Center, Cedat River Operational Ecological Study: Ann ual Re po rt . January 1978 to December 1978. NRC Docket No. 50-331.
- 17. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company. 1981. Operational Ecological Study in the Cedar River near Duane Arnold Energy Center. January through December 1980. NRC Docket No. 50-331.
- 18. UNESC O. 1978. Phytoplankton Manual. A. So urnia , Ed i tor. Page Broth (rs, Ltd . , - Norwic h. 33 7 . Pag es .
- 19. Beck , W.M. 1977. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Gammon Freshwater Chironomidae. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Of fice of Research and Dev elo pm en t . U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency.
E PA-600 /4-7 7-024, 261 Pages.
- 20. Middendorf, R. 1973. Evaluation of a Fishery to Determine Ef fects of the Duane Arnold Energy Center. Unpublished Manuscript for Fisheries Management Branch, Fisheries Section, State Conservation Commission.
i i f f 4 i I 2 I I _ _ _ . . _ ,. . . . . _ , . _... _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ , ._. . . _ _ _
# a. - . - .44a. _ 4 - .a. - 2. .-% p44 w.Ca. .1.44ma A h n =%+
1 + . i ( I i i
+
i i t { i
?
4 J 1 APPENDICES e 1$ r I l 1 l l . _ . - . . . _ _ _ .._-_ _ ., ..--. , _ . , , _ _ . _ _ _ . , _ ____...__..__ . _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , . . . . - . _ , _ . . . _ , _ _ . , . - . _ , ~.. _.__ -.. . _. . . , _ -,,-__,
L APPENDIX A--NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS i l l 1 --. - . , ,_ -.7,.
n A + __- ,p44 4 4 _,4.<s: .s4 . I i , . ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Page iii LIST OF TABLES .................................. iv I LIST.0F FIGURES ...,............................. i 1.0-1 l1.0 DEFINITIONC ..................................... 4
'2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONDITIONS 2<l-1 AND 3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 l 2.1 Thermal.................................. 2.1-1 2.1.1 Maximum Discharge Temperature.... 2.2-1 2.2 Chemical................................. Chlorine......................... 2.2-1 2.2.1 Other Chemi,cals.................. 2.2-2 2.2.2 2.3-1 2.3 Radiological............................. 2.3-1 2.3.1 Radioactive Effluents............ 4.1-1 4.0- ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES... B io l o gi ca l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
- 4.1 - 4.1-1 4.1.1 Aquatic..........................
4.1.2 Terrestrial...................... 4.1-6 4.2-1 ! 4.2 Physica1................................. 4 . 2 -1 4.2.1 Noise............................ 4.3 Radiological............................. 4.S-1 Monitoring Requirements.......... 4. 3-1 4.3.1 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS .............,........... 5.1-1 5.0 Review and Audit......................... 5.1-1 5.1 5.1.1 Operations Committee............. 5.1-1 5.1.2 S a f e ty Commit t e e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1 t L l A-1
11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page 5.2 Action To Be Taken In The. Event of Violation,Of An Environmental Technical Specification.................. 5.2-1 5.3 Operating Procedures..................... 5. 3-1 5.4 Plant Repo rting Req uirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-1 5.4.1 Semi-Annual Operating Reports.... 5.4-1 5.4.2 Non-Routine Reports.............. 5.4-3 5.4.2.1 Violations............. 5.4-3 5.4.2.2 Changes................ 5.4-5 5.5 Records Retention........................ 5.5-1 1 i A-2 1
1 l iii ENVIR0taENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF TABLES Table Page Number Title Sources of Add'ed Chemicals and Resulting 2.2-4 8.2-1 End Product Chemicals Radioactive Liquid Waste Samphng and 2.3-8 3.3-1 Analysis Radioactive Gaseous Waste Sampling and 2.3-9 3.3-2 Analysis 4.3-1 Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring 4.3-3 P rogram Reporting of Radioactivity in the Environs 5.4-6 5.4-1 l l A-3
iv l ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF FIGURES , Figure Number Title Page 4.1-1 Non-radiological Cedar River Operational 4.3-12 Sampling Locations 4.3-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 4.3-13 Sampling Stations (Map) 1 A-4
i 1.0 -1 i l 1.0 DEFINITIONS 'The succeeding frequently used terms are explicitly defined so that a uniform interpretation of the specifications may be achieved.
- 1. Start-up - The reactor shall be considered in the start-up Inode*
when the shutdown margin is reduced with the intent of going critical. { i I l l A-5
I 2.1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONDITIONS 3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2.1 nerwl 3.1 Thermal Objective Objective To ensure that thermal discharges from the To ensure that the discharge water plant cogly with applicable Stata. standards. temperature is conitored and is main-tained within the technical specifica-tions. 2.1.1 Maximum Discharge Temperature 3.1.1 Maximum Discharge Tegerature Specification Specification ne effluent discharge temperature as measured Mid-depth te@erature elements will be in the discharge canal shall not exceed 95 placed in the discharge canal near the dagret.s. If this temperature limit is exceeded, weir and at the intake screen house in en analysis of the combined river tec:perature the river stream to measure discharge vill be made to ensure cogliance with State temperature and ambient river tempera-standards. Wis analysis shall be in accor-ture respectively. A continuous dance with the following formula: re order is provided for river wat'er V temperature. These teeperatures will be RR B B" where: R B RC transmitted to the plant process coc:puter with maximu=s logged daily and hourly. Back-up temperature monitoring is pro-VR = 1/4 of Actual River Flow vided by cooling tower basin temperature elements and river water supply pump T= g River Temperature discharge temperatures which are also _ transmitted to the plant process computer. V= B Blowdown Flow e sens W ty and accura y.of @e e temperature sensors is Oil E- and 3. ,
'B wdown Temperature respectively. Instrumer.tation to measure flow information is provided for cooling T =
Combined River Temperature - Af ter "*# " "" * # ** "*
- RC 1*i"8 intake structure. The information is continuously recorded at the respective T is limited to a maximum of 90*F, and also locati ns and transmitted to the plant
~ Process computer.
tb be less than (TR + 5'F). Bases Bases Applicable Iowa Water Quality Standards state The river water temperature' element that discharges shall be made such that at the and river water supply pump discharge 7 day-10 year low conditions receiving temperature element provide ambient i l j j A-6
2.1-2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONDITIONS 3.0 MONITORING PIQUIPIMENTS 2.1.1 Bases (Cont'd.) 3.1.1 Bases (Cont'd.) water cemperatures shall not exceed 90*F or river te=perature. Whenever the river 5'F above ambient at a point sufficiently far water supply pump discharge temperature dowastream to permit adequate mixing. The is being used and travelling screen thermal plume analysis es presented in the deicing is in progress, a te=perature Final Environmental Sta(ement indicates that "of 32 degrees will be assumed. The this specification will result in a nix'ng te=perature elements in the discharge zona well within any reasonable definition of canal and tower basins. provide the
- a mixing zone and of a lateral exten,t of not discharge temperature pric r to mixing.
mora than 25% of the river width and a total crsa of not more than one acre. Upon veri-fication of the f.er=alplumeasdescribed in saction 4, the' necessity of this speci-fication will be reanalyzed. l A-7
- - .=. . . -
2.2-1 ] J 2.0 ENVIRONSTAL FROTECTION CONDITIONS 3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2.2 Chemical 3.2 Chemical 2.2.1 Chlorine 3.2.1 Chlorine Objective Objective To maintain Javels of total residual To assure that total residual chlorine chlorine equal to or less than those discharges are maintained within the specified in the Final Environmental technical specifications. Statement which are designed to protect equatic life and to give suf ficient lat'i-tude to allow a determination of optimum methods of chlorination. 4 Specification Specification I While the plant is discharging cooling Samples will be taken from the discharge tower effluent, the following limits canal just prior to each chlorination shall apply: and every 15 minutes thereaf ter, when discharge is taking place, until the A. During the first 12 months concentration has decreased to less e after plant startup, total than 0.1 mg/1. If automatic recording i residual chlori'ne shall .not equipment, acceptable to the staf f, is j exceed 0.5 mg/l at any time installed, the above manual samples, and shall not exceed 0.1 mg/l shall be deleted. Samples will be for more than two hours per, , taken from. the discharge canal just
. day. , prior to the outfall into the Cedar River. Total and free residual chlorine B. After the above period otal levels will be determined by the .
residual chlorine disc arges amperometric method. # shall be limited to 0.1 mg/l or less for a maximum of two. hours per day {} 1 C. If total residual chlorine is ! not maintained below 0.1 mg/l at all times, the special studies ! described in section 4.1.1.10 shall be conducted. D. Within twelve months af ter plant i startup, a report (see section l , 4.1.1.12) will be submitted to ! the Staff stating whether the ! conditions of Section B sbove can be met. If Section B cannot be i met, a plan will be submitted stating l proposed modifications to enable j compliance. A-8
2.2-2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONDITIONS 3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Bases Bases Sactions A and D are designed to allow The chlorine monitoring program is - an interim period to determine optimum designed to provide a reliable record methods of chlorination and residual of chlorine concentration in the chlorine control as means to meet tNe' discharge canal as a function of time l provisions of Section B are not presently af ter chlorination has started and to - known, and to enaure that actfon is taken assure that chlorine residuals are to datermine these optimum methods. The maintained within the limits of the leval of 0.1 ug/l quoted in A is expected technical specifications. to b2 a transient level exceeded for no more than 2 hours per day and decaying to' ] lavels below 0.1 mg/l within approximately 2 hours after cessation of chlorine'fced. Section B is the normal restriction insti- { tuted for the protection of aquatic life. Section C is to ensure that actual ef fects
. of residual chlorir.2 are measured whenever
{ the limit of 0.1 mg/l is exceeded. 2.2.2 Other Chemicals 3.2.2 Other Chemicals Objective Objective 1 1 To specify significant amounts of To specify record keeping requirements
, chemical usage which result in effluent for chemicals used at the DAEC site _
discharges to the river. and to specify monitoring requirements. Specification Specification Chemicals,which are used in large quantities Appropriate receipt records of'all I at the plant are listed in Table 2.2-1. che=icals brought into the plant will be raintained. Reports-of sulphuric acid usage shall be in a'ecordance with section 5.4. Chemical analyses of samples taken from the river are described in subsection 4.1.1. The neutralizing tank shall be sampl'd e prior to discharge to ensure,.pH,is within State limits. i 4 4 A-9
s
. x,
, 2.2-3
~
2.0 DNIRONMENTAL-IROTECTION CONDITIONS - 3.0 -i10NITORING REQUIRDiENTS 2.2.2 Bm _ . 3.2.2 Bases g No sigaificant chemical discharges other With the exception of chlorine and sul-than chloyine are made from the.DA1C. phuric acid on-site chemical usage is An amount of sulphryLc acid is adde'd tp insignificant.- A listing of expected tha circulating watergud subsequently, annual u sage of minute quantities of discharged as sulfates, but its impact laboratory chemicals is presented la is not considered .to ba significant.~ table 3.5-1 of the DAEC Environmental
; Report.
, The neutralizing tank will be pumped to the river at a maximum of 100 gpm.
This discharge is diluted with well
~
water and any blowdown,present.
' s
,,. .s Any significant ef fect in the river
' ^
will be ascertained through the
-- . special study nonitoring program 4
detailed in subsection 4.1.1. b
#9 Y.s ,*
- g. ** m
.' ]
, #s = 4 0 A O* a, i 1 _. A-10
TABLE 2.2-1 SOURCES OF ADDED CllDiICALS AND RESULTANT END PRODUCT CIIDi1CALS Maximum Resulting Chemical Maximum Waste End End Product Added Annual Use Product Annual Mean-Daily System Source Chemical Lbs. Chemical Lbs. Lbs.
~
- 1. Circulating Liquid Chlorine 160,000 Cl 1583000 433 Water Chloramines 2,000 5*
H SO 2 4 7,000,000 504 " 7,000,000 20,000 $ Y E
- 2. Makeup 11 S0 , Na0li 2 4 182,000 'O" S
4 132,000 500 Demineralizer
- Maximum Allowell Per Environmental Technical Specifications.
4.1-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1 Biological 4 .1.1, Aquatic ibjective
- 1. To continue routine water quality deter =ination in the Cedar River in order to identify any conditions which could result in environ-mental or water quality problems.
- 2. To conduct physical, chemical and biological studies in and adjacent to the discharge canal and to compare the results with similar studies above the intake. This will make it possible to determine any water quality changes occurring as the result of chemical additions or con-denser passage and to identify acy impact of the plant effluent on aquatic co=munities adjacent to the discharge.
- 3. To identify and quantify organisms impinged on the intake screens and entrained in the intake water in order to estimate the magnitude' and effects of impingement and condenser passage on the ecology of the Cedar River.
- 4. To verify the extent of the thermal plume.-
- 5. To establish that any excess concentrations are not due mto;ex.csssive levels of free chlorine in the condensers and to determine the eventual fate of any excess total chlorine after discharge to the Cedar River.
Specifications
~
Sampling sites will be established in the discharge canal and at four locations in the Cedar River (Figure 4.1-1): 1) upstream of the plant at the Lewis Access Bridge; 2) directly above the plant intake; 3) at a point to be,rdetermined no more than 300' below the plant discharge; 4) adjacent to Co=p Farm about 1/2 mile below the plant. 4.1.1.1 General Water Quality Analysis A. Frequency: Twice per month routinely and as necessary when conditions warrant. B. Location: At all four river sites ar.d the discharge canal. A-12
. _ = , = .,. _ _ - . _ _ . _ .. -- .
1 4.1-2 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL SIUDIES 4.1.1 Specification (Cont'd.) C. Parameters to be measured: } 1. D.O. 7. Ca Hardness 13. Lignins & tannen
.2. pH 8. Total PO 14. BOD 4
- 3. CO 9. . Ortho PO 4 15. C0D 2
- 4. Total Alkalinity . 10. NO *
- 3
- 5. CO 'I *
" 4+
3
- 6. Total Hardness 12. Fe 18. Turbidity
- 19. Color
- 4.1.1.2 Complete Water Quality Analysis A. Frequency
- Three times per year during spring, summer and fall.
B. Location: At all four river locations and the discharge canal. l C. Parameters to be measured: All general water quality parameters i plus -
- 1. Cu 5. Cr+6 9. NO 2
, 2. Zn 6. Mn 10. Total solids
- 3. Hg 7. .Cl- 11. Pesticides in fish from two j 4. Pb .8 . SO pites, above O' arid bElow plant.
1 In addition, D.O. , pH and alkalinity will be determined at each site every, four hours over a 24-hour period.; i A-13 1
~_ . _ , _ _ . _ . _ . _ ._ _,_
4.1-3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1.1 Specification (Cont'd.) 4.1.1.3 Plankton Studies A. Frequency: Trice peremonth routinely and as necessary when conditions warrant. B. Location: At al1 four river locations and the discharge canal. C. Analyses to be made: Nd:bers and kinds (to genus whenever possible) of organisms ~present. 4.1.1.4 Bacteriological Studies A. Frequency : Twice per month. Additional determinations of fecal coliforms will be conducted on samples from the effluent fro.m the station's sewage treatment plant. B. Location: At all four river locations and the discharge' ca'nals. C. Analyses to be made:
- 1. Total plae count (20 C.)
- 2. Total coliJorm (MF)
- 3. Fecal coliform (MF)-
- 4. Fecal streptococci (MF) s 4.1.1.5 Benthic (bottom organism) Studies A. Frequency: Quarterly D' O B. Location: At all .four river sites C. Analysis : Kinds (to genus whenever possible) and numbers of organisms present will be determined. Sediment type will also be determined.
4.1.1.6 Periphyton A. Frequency: Three times per year during spr'ing, summer and fall. as availabl1. B. Location: Artificial substrates will be installed at Site 2; above the plant intake, and at Site 3, below the plant, and in the discharge canal. C. Analyses to be r.ade: Substrates will be removed after two weeks to one month. The biomass and generic cocposition will be determined. 1 A-14
4.1-4 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1.1 Specification (Cont'd. ) 4.1.1.7 Fisheries Studies I
'The present fisheries studies will_ be continued three times per year (spring, su=t.r and fall) in' consultation with the Iowa Conservation Commis'sion.
Sampling is carried out at the DAEC sfte and upstream in the vicinity of Lewis Access. Seining," boiled hoop' nets and electroshocking are utilized in
! collecting the fish which are,then identified, weighed, and ceasured. _
Preliminary age and growth studies, stomach sample analysis and pesticide . residue determinations are carried out. 3 l 4.1.1.8 Entrainment Quarterly determinations of the species mad biomass of organisms in the intake water will be determined by placing plankton nets at the intake structur,e. The total volume of organisms subject to _ condenser passage may be c'alculated by determining the area of the plankton net, the velocity of the water, and the volume of water entering the plant. This study will continue for a cdnimum of two years. 4.1.1.9 Impingement On'ce a day, the nunber 'of fish found in the trash collection basket on the station's intake will be determined by the station personnel. These data will be forwarded monthly to Iowa Electric's consultant for analysis.s. An j
! inventory of species, numbers, and size of all fish taken from the. trash collection baskets on a given day will be conducted quarterly. A report of this data and analysis will be submitted to the staff as detailed in sub-i secelon 5.4. If excessive numbers of fish are taken from the travelling screens. Iowa Electric's consultant will be immediately notified and the cause determined. Additional studies and corrective action will be initiated
.os gequired.
g .-
~
4.1.l.10 Fish Basset Studies' Live boxes containing native fish taken from the Cedar River will be placed i in the river upstream of the plant intake and at the mouth cf the discharge l canal. These studies will be conducted ~in conjunction with the su=mer quarterly studies. Live boxes will be lef t in place for a period of 48 hours. During this time, the fish will be observed for evidences of distress and other erratic behaviour', and tortality rates in boxes above the plant and in the discharge will be compared. A-15 I
4.1-5 4.0 ENVIRONMENIAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1.1 Specification (Cont'd. ) 4.1.1.11 Thermal Plume Mapping Te=perature measurements in the river will.be made during representative low ficw conditions (300-400 cfs) to verify the extent of the thermal plume. A report of these findings will be submitted 'to the staff upon completion.- 4.1.1.12 _ Chlorine A study will be conducted to . determine optimum methods of chlorination on a seasonally adjusted, regular, intermittent basis so as to. result in the optimum balance between effective control of condenser biological slime and scale formation and the detrimental effects of chloramines on aquatic life. As a part of this study, the following wili be accomplished: A.. During the first year:
- 1. Determine free and total residual in circulating water system blowdown d,uring chlorination period, 2 times / month.
- 2. Determine free and total residual in river during and following' chlorination (to catch peak) for same period as in A1. above, 2 times / month.
B. During a 90 day period to include spring conditions when chlorine demand may be most troublesome:
- 1. Determine free and total residual at condenser exit once/ day at
,the end of a chlorination period.
4 2. 9etermine free.and total residual in tower blowdown once/ day at end of same chlorination period used in Bl. above. Bases The Cedar River Baseline study has established the existing Cedar River ecology prior to operation of the plant. A comparison o.f pre-operational and post-operational data vill allow the determination of any significant effects of plant operation on the river ecosystems. The entrainment study will verify the actual' species and biomass of organisms diverted from the river. A-16
4.1-6 ; 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1.1 Bases (Cont'd) The Final Environmental State =ent presented the Thermal Pluse which is expected as a result of plant operation. The measurement of the thermal plume will allow verification'of this analysis. The chlorine study will . allow correlation of actual concentration and distribution of total residual chlorine in the Cedar River with existing levels of free chlorine at the condenser outlet. 4.1.2 Terrestrial t Objective
- 1. To determine the characteristics of the terrestrial plant and animal j co== unities in the vicinity of the DAEC following plant startup.-
Comparison of the results of these determinations with preoperational studies will make it possible to assess the effects of the operation of the DAEC on the terrestrial ecology.
- 2. To deter =ine significant effects of cooling tower operation on the plant co== unities adjacent to the site by periodic visual inspection of plant foliage downwind of the towers.
Specification The terrestrial monitoring program as reported in the DAEC Terrestrial Flora Study (August 1972) and Terrestrial Fauna Study (October 1972) will be repeated two years after co==ercial cperation of the plant com=ences. A monthly visual inspection will be cade of the vegetation on and around the site in the direction of prevailing winds to determine any possible salt drift' damage. If symptocs' of salt damage are apparent, samples of affected i and unaffected individuals of the same pplant species will be photographed,
. sampled ~and unwashed samples analyzed for total salts. The results of,these inspections will be reported as detailed in Section 5.4 This prograd will continue for a minimum of two years.
Bas es The terrestrial flora and fauna studies established the baseline ecology prior to the operation of the DAEC. These studies will be repeated in order to document any significant effects of plant operation on the terrestrial environment. Review of visual examination of plant foliage will docu=ent any significant effects of cooling tower operation on plant co=munities adjacent to the station. A-17
4.2-1 4.0 EhVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL SillDIES 4.2 Physical 4.2.1 Noise Objective
~
To ensure that noise levels from the cooling towers do not become an annoyance to the nearest neighbors to the DAEC. Specification If complaints are receivco that the noise from the cooling towers or breakers are excessive, a noise survey will be conducted and an appro-priate plan of action submitted to the Staff. Bases. The indoor noise levels at the nearest farm house have been calculated to correspond to a noise criteria (NC) level 30, which may prove annoying to the occupants. The noise levels associated with breaker operation correspond to momentary sound pressure levels of 110 db. As these breakers will operate on the order of once per year, the impact will not be significant. If circuit bre&ker operation is fairly frequent, it may prove annoying. a l A-18
5.1-1 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CON 1401. 5.1 Review and Audit Thi Iowa Electric Light and Power Company will obtain the necessary expertise in environmental disciplines sih.nificant to the Duane Arnold Energy Center, to administer the environmental monitoring program. Administrative measures have bee,n defined which provide that the Quality Assurance and Quality Control group assigned the responsibility for periodically checking, auditing, inspecting, or otherwise verifying that an tetivity has been correctly performed is independent of the individual or group directly responsible for performing the specific activity. Committees for review and audit other than quality assurance of plan operations hav2 been constituted and have the responsibilities and authorities as outlined below and required by ANSI N18.7-1972, " Administrative Controls for N6 clear Powar Plants" and " Project Manager's Draf t Guide for the Preparation of Environmental Technical Specification for Nuclear Power Plants," dated Jan-uary 29, 1973. 5.1.1 Operations Committee A committee of technicE11y qualified plant staf f members has been appointed by thn Chief Engineer to perform timely and continuing reviews of plant op2 rations. The committee's activities shall be governed by a written gharter which includes (1) specification of committee membership and designation of its chairman, (2) the administrative procedures by which it functions, including specification of a quorum, meeting frequency, maintenance of records, and transmitting of its decisions. (3) its authority, and (4) its ! review responsibilities. The latter includes all new or revised plant proce-dures, proposed tests or experiments, proposed changes in plant systems or (quipment, observed violations of Plant or-Environmental Technical Specifica-tions, abnormal occurrences, proposed changes to the Plant or Environmental Technical Specifications, and any occurrence of a- safety limit being exceeded. 5.1.2 Safety Committee A committee of technically qualified persons has been appointed by the Vice l Prasident-Engineering to perform timely and continuing audits of plant op3 rations, including the Environmental Monitoring Program. The committee's activities shall be governed by a written charter which includes: (1) spacification of committee menbership and designation of its chairman, ,(2) th2 Edministrative procedures by which it functions, including specification of a quorum, meeting frequency, maintenance of records, and transmitting of 1 l A-19
5.1-2 S.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.1.2 Review and Audit (Cont'd.) its decisions, (3) its authority, and (4) its review responsibilities. The latt'er includes all _new or revised _ plant procedures, preposed tests or experiments, proposed changes in plant systems or equipment, observed violations of Plant or Environmental Technical Spec'ifications, abnormal occurrences, proposed changes to the Plant or Environmental Technical Specifications, and any occurrence of a safety lindt being exceeded. 6 A-20
_ - . . - - - . - . _. -. ~ _ - i 5 .2 -1 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.2 Action to be taken in the Event of Violation of an Environmental Technical Specification A. Any Environmental Tedh'ical n Specification (ETS)' violation will'b'e reported immediately to the Chief Engineer
- and the' General Produc-tion Manager and promptly reviewed as specified in Section'-5.1- ,
B. As specified in Secti6n, 5.4.2, a separate report for ca'ch ETS
, violation will be prepared. This report will include an evaluation i of the cause of the occurrence, a record of the corrective action
- taken, and recommendations for appropriate action to . prevent or reduce the probability of a recurrence.
I C. Copies of all such reports will be submitted to the General Produc-tion Manager and Safety Comittee for review and approval of any recommendations. I D. Iowa Electric will repert the circumstances of any ETS violations to the AEC as specified in Section 5.4.2. I l A-21 1
.. - - . _ . . _ . _ _ - . _ ~ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ , ._
5.3-1 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.3 Operating Procedures A. Detailed written procedures, including applicable checkoff lists and instructions will?be prepared, approved as specified in Section 5.3.2 and adhered to for operation" of all systems and components involved in carrying out the environmental monitoring program. Pro-cedures will include sampling, instrument calibration, analysis, and actions to be taken when limits are approached or exceeded. Calibration frequencies for instruments used in performing the measurements required by the ETS will be included. A Quality Control Program will be followed for the calibration of instruments and sensors and records will be maintained. Testing frequency of alarms will be included. These frequencies *will be determined from experience with similar instruments in similar environments and from manufacturers technical manuals. B. All procedures described in 5.3.1 above, and changes thereto, will be reviewed as specified in Section 5.1 and approved by the Chief Engineer prior to implementation. Temporary changes to procedures which do not. change the intent of the original procedures may be made, provided such changes are approved by two members of the plant management staff. Such changes will be documented, subsequently reviewed and approved on a timely basis. I i A-22
- 5. 4 -1 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.4 Plant Reporting Requirements 5,4.1 Semi-Annual Operating Reports Semi-annual operating reports covering the previous .six months' operations shall be submitted withi,n 60 days af ter January 1 and' July 1 of each year.
Tha first such period should begin with the date of initial criticality. These reports shall include the following: A. Radioactive Effluent Releases A statement of the quantities of radioactive effluents' released from the plant, with data summarized on a monthly basis following the format of Appendix A of USAEC Safety Guide 21 of Jaruary 1972:
- 1. Gaseous Effluents
- a. Gross Radioactivity Releases
- 1. Total gross radioactivity (in'euries),
I primarily noble ~and activation gases.
- 11. M' a ximum gross radioactivity release rate during any one-hour period.
iii. Total gross radioactivity (in curies), l by nuclide released, based on represen-tative isotopic analyses performed. iv. Percent o'f ETS limit. s
- b. Iodine Releases
- 1. Total iodine radioactivity (in curies) by nuclide released, based on represen-tative isotopic analyses performed.
- 11. Percent of ETS limit for I-131 released.
- c. Particulate Releases
- 1. Total gross radioactivity (Beta, Gamma) released *
(in curies) excluding background radioactivity,
- 11. Gross alpha radioactivity released (in curies) excluding background radioactivity.
I A-23
5.4-2 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.4.1 Semi-Annual Operating Reports (Cont'd.) 111. Total gross radioactivity released (in curies) of nuclides with half-lives greater than eight days, iv. Percent of technical specification limit for particulate. radioactivity with half-lives greater th n eight days.
- 2. Liquid Effluents
- a. Total gross radioactivity (Beta, Gamma) released (in curies) excluding tritium and average concentration released to the unrestricted area. .
- b. The maximum concentration of gross radioactivity (Beta, Gacma) released to the unrestricted area .
(averaged over the pe,riodyof release),
- c. Total tritium and total alpha radioactivity (in curies) released and, average concentration released to the unrestricted area.
- d. Total dissolved' noble gas radi*oactivity (in curies) and average concentration released to the unrestric-ted area.
- e. Total volume (in liters) of'. liquid effluent released.
- f. Total volume (in liters) of dilution water used prior to release from the restrictsd are'. a
- g. Total rad'i.' activity (in curies) by nuclide released, based on reoresentative isotopic analyses performed.
- h. Percent of .:TS limit for total activity released.
B. Solid Radioactive Wasse
- 1. The total amount of solid radioactive waste packaged l (in cubic feet).
I A-24
i j l i 5.4-3 i 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ~ CONTROL 5.4.1 Semi-Anaual Operating Reports (Cont'd.)
- 2. The total estimated. gross radioactivity (in curies) of j packaged material.
j 3. Disposit' ion of material including date and desti nation
; if shipped offsite.
C. Environmental Monitoring
+
i .
- 1. Results for all samples taken shall be reported to the Commission twice a year within 60 calendar days of January 1 and July 1. In addition, the data will be summarized on a quarterly basis, following the forma,t of Table 5.4-1 and included in the semi-anntial repett, In the event that some results are not available within the 60 day period, the report will be sabmitted noting and explaining the reasons for the missing results. The missing data vill be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report.
j 2. If statistically significant variations of offsite I environmental radionuclide concentrations with time are observed, a comparison of these results with ef_ fluent releases will be provided.
- 3. Individual samples which show higher than normal levels (25% above background for external dose, or twice back-ground for radionuclide content) should be noted in the reports.
5.4.2 Non-Routine Reports l 5.4.2.1 Violations Notification of violations of an ETS should be made within 24 hours by telephone or telegraph to the Director of the Regional Regulatory Operations Office, followed by a written report within 10 days to the Director of Licensing with a copy to the Director of the Regional Regulatory Operations Office. The written report and, to the extent possible, the preliminary celephone or telegraph report, should: (a) describe, analyze and evaluate safety implica-tions, (b) outline the measures taken to assure that the cause of the condition A-25 _ _ _ - - ~ _ _ . . . . _ ._ . . - - . _ . _ _ . . .-
5.4-4
- is determined, (c) indicate the corrective action (including any significant changes made to the procedures and the quality assurance program) taken to prevent repetition of the occurrence and to prevent similar occurrences involving similar components or systems, and (d) evaluate the safety implica-tions of the incident in ligh,t .of the cumulative experience obtained from the record of previous failures and malfunctions of similar systems and components.
'l The following conditions.will be considered as violations of ETS unless otherwise specified by a particular specification. , A. The occurrence of any. condition in violation of an ETS. B. Any other conditions that indicate a significant environmental impact. C. If levels of radioactivity in environment medium camples whe'n averaged over a calendar quarter indicate that the resultant 4 dose to an individual from these levels could equal or exceed 40 mrem / year, the licensee will take appropriate action to assure that such release rates are reduce'd, D. If levels of , radioactivity in environmental medium samples, when averaged over a calendar quarter, indicate that the resultant dose to an individual from these levels could equal or exceed 10 mren/ year, the licensee will: 1 1. Make an investigation to identify the causes for such dose rates.
- 2. Define and initiate a program of action to reduce such dose rates to the design objective level of 5 mres per year.
- 3. Report these actions to the Com=ission within 30 days.
E. If such levels,as discussed in 5.4.2.1 3 & 4 can be defin.11ely shown to result from sources other than the Duane Arnold Energy Center, the action called for in 5.4.2.13&4 need not be taken Justification for assigning high levels of radioactivity to sources other than the Duane Arnold Energy Center will be provided in the semi-annual report. F. If levels of Iodine-131 in the air-milk pathway indicate that the resultant annual dose to an individual from these levels could equal or exceed 60 mrem, c plan will be submitted within one week advising the AEC of the proposed action to ensure the plant-related annual doses will be within the design objective of 15 mrem / year. A-26 l.
5.4-5 For example, with an I-131 design objective of 15 mrem / year to the thyroid of any individual, if individual milk samples show I-131 concentrations of 10 pCi/l or greater, the results will' be reported along with a proposed plan of action, as discussed-above. G. If samples of the air-milk environmental pathway over a calendar-quarter show levels of I-131 that could result in accumulated plant-related doses to the thyroid of an individual of 7.5 mrem for that quarter, the re'sults shall be reported and a plan - . . . submitted and implemented within 30 days to limit conditions so that the annual dose to the thyroid of an individual will not exceed 15 mrem. S.4.2.2 Changes
- 1. When a change to the plant (that affects the environmental impact evaluation contained in the Environmental Report and the Enviroc~
mental Statement) or to the environmental monitoring procedure.s or equipment is planned, a report of the change vill be submitted - to the AEC for information prior to implementation of the change. This is not intended to preclude making changes on short notice
~
that are significant in terms of decreasing adverse environmental impact, etc. However, these changes will be promptly reported. ( 2. Changes or additions to permits and certificates requir'ed.lby.Nederal, State, local and regional authorities, for the protection of the' ' environment, will be reported. When the required' changes are submitted to the concerned agency for approval, they will also be submitted to the Deputy Director for Reactor Projects, Directorate of Licensing, USAEC, for information. The report will include an evaluation of the impact of the change.
~
- 3. Request for changes in ETS will be submitted to the Deputy Director of Reactor Projects, Directorate of Licensing, USAEC, for priqr review and authorization. The request will include an evaluation of the impact of the change.
A-27
5.5-1 5.0 ! ADMINISTRATIVE CONTLOL 5.5 Records Retention
,A. All records and logs relative to the following areas shall be retained for at least 5 years:
- 1. Records of abnormal occurrences.
- 2. Records of periodic checks, inspections and cali-brations performed to verify that surveillance requirements are being met. !
- 3. Records of radioactive shipments.
B. All records relative to the following areas shall be retained for the life of the plant:
- 1. Records of environmental monitoring surveys.
- 2. Records of radioactivity in liquid and gaseous effluents released to the environment.
- 3. Minutes of meetings of.the Operations Committee and the Safety Committee, i
l I A 28
APPENDIX B--NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFIC-TIONS (1980)
1 Ef fective January 19, 1975, activities under the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission reguistory program were assumed by the U. S. Muclear P.egula tory Coaniss ton in accordance vita the Ene rgy Reorgani:atton g Act of 1974 Any refsrencas to the Atomic Energy Connission (A*iC) concained herein should be interpreted as Nuclear Regulatory Conatssion .g._5g, 74 , 7 (NRC). ENVIRO 5?.EhTAL TSC:!NICAL SPECIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page b iii LIS T O F TAB L ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF FICURES ................................ . 1.0 DEFINITIOSS ..................................... 1.0-1 2.3 ENVIIODENTAL PROTECTION CO.Q1TIONS AND 3.0 MONITORING REQUIPS.ENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-1 Therca1.................................. 2.1-1 2.1 2.1.1 Maximum Discharge Temperature. . .. 2.,1-1 2.2 Che=ica1................................. 2.2-1 2.2.1 Chlo rin e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-1 2.2.2 Other Chemicals . . . . . . .- 2.2-2 2.3 Radiological............................. 2.3-1 2.3.1 Radioactive Ef flue n;s . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-1 4.0 ENVIR0 RENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES. . . 4.1-1 4.1 B io l o gi c al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1 4.1.1 Aquatic.......................... 4'.'l-1 4.1.2 Terrestrial...................... 4.1-6 Physical................................. 4.2-1 4.2 Noise............................ 4.2-1 4.2.1 Radiological............................. 4.3-1
.4 .' 3 4.3.1 Monitoring Requirements.......... 4.3-1 3.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONT 20LS' ......................... 5.1-1 Reviev a n d Ar :d i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.L-i 3.1 3.1.1 Operations C3mmittee............. 3.1-L-5.1.2 Safety Co==lttee................. 5.1-1 i
B-1
11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) , P,a ge, ! 5.2 Action To Be Taken In Th'e Event of Violation Of An Environmental Technical Specification.................. 5.2-1 5.3 Opera ting P roce du re s ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-1 ) 5.4 Plant Reporting Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-1 5.4.1 Semi-Annual. Operating Reports. . . . 5.4-1 5.4.2 Non-Routine Repo rts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4-3 5.4.2.1 Violations.............. 5.4-3 5.4.2.2 Changes................ 5.4-5 4 5.5 ' Records Retention........................ 5.5-1 i I i 4 4 1 Y l i B-2 l - - -
iii ENVIRON}ElTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF TABLES Ceblo iumbar Title Page
- 2. 2 -1 Sources of Added Chemicals and Rehulting 2.2-4 End Product Chemicals 3.3-1 Radioactive Liquid Waste Sampling and 2.3-8 Analysis 3.3-2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste Sampling and 2.3-9 Analysis L.3-1 Environmental Ra'dioactisity Monitoring 4.3-3 Program 5.4-1 Reporting of Radioactivity in the. Environs 5.4-6 B-3
l iv ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF FIGURES Figure Nu=ber Title Page 4.1-1 Non-radiological Cedar River Operational 4.3-12 Sampling Locations t 4.3-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 4.3-13 Sampling Stations' (Map) B;4
1.0-1 l
- 1.0 DEFINITIONS
- Tne succeeding frequently used terms are explicitly defined so that a uniform interpretation of the specifications may be achieved.
- 1. Start-up - The reactor shall be considered in the start-up code when the shutdown margin is reduced with the intent of going critical.
4 l l B-5 1
. , . - - - . . - --- -. __L
2.1-1 l 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONDITIOSS 3.0 MONITORING PZQUIREMENTS 2.1 Ther=al 3.1 Thermal Objective Objective To ensure that therr.al discharges from the To ensure that the. discharge water plant, cot: ply with applicable State standards. tecperature is runitored and is r.ain-tained within the technical specifica-tions. 2.1.1 Maximu= Discharge Temperature 3.1.1 Maximus Discharge Temperature Specification Specification The effluent discharge temperature as measured Mid-depth ter:perature elements vill be in the discharge canal shall not exceed 95 pla ced in the discharge canal near the dagrees. If this ter::perature limit is exceeded, veir and at the intake screen house in en analysis of the combined river tet:perature the river stream to measure discharge vill be cade to ensure c,o=pliance with State temperature and ambient river te=pera-I standards. This analysis shall be in accct- ture respectively. A continuous dance with the following for=ula: recorder is provided for river water - temperature. These tecperatures vill be-V RR+ B B" R RC where: transmitted to the plant process computer B with maxicues logged daily and hourly. Back-up temperature ocnitoring is pro-
.VR = 1/4 of Actual River Flow vided by cooling tower basin te=perature elements and river water supply pump T= River Te=perature discharge te=peratures which are also R transmitted to the plant process computer.
V= Blowdown Flow The sensitivity and accuracy of these B temperature sensors is 0.1*F and 3% T= Blowdown Te=perature respectively. Instrumentation to. measure B flow inforr.ation is provided for cooling T = Combined River Temperature - After t ver blowdown and river flow at the RC g intake structure. The infor=ation is continuously recorded at the respective T is li=ited to a maximum of 90*F, and also locati ns and trans=itted to the plant process computer. t$kelessthan(TR + 5'F) . Bases 388** ' Applicable Iowa Water Quality Standards state The river water temperature, element that discharges shall be made such that at the and river water supply pump disch'arge 7 day-10 year low conditions receiving tecperatuit element provide ambient l l l B-6
2.1-2 2.0 ENVIRohMENTAL PR0;ECTION CONDITIONS 3.0 MONIIVRING REQUIREMENTS 2.1.1 Bases (Cont'd.) 3.1.1 . Bases (Cont'd.) vate.: tecperatures shall not exceed 90*F or river temperature. L'henever the river 5'T ebove ambient at a peint sufficiently far water supply pu=p discharge temperature J,wnstream to per=it adequate mixing. The is being used and travelling screen tharsal plume analysis as presented in the deicing is in progress, a temperature Final Environmental Statement indicates that of 32 degrees vill be assumed. Tne this spacification vill result in d cixing , temperature elements in the discharge zona vall within any ceasonable definition of canal and tower basins provide the a mixing zone and of a lateral extent of not discharge temperature prior to eixing. cor,e than 25% of the river vidth and a total crea (f not more than one acre. Upon veri-fication o'f the thermal pl .sce as described in scetion 4, the necessity of this speci-
.fication vill be reanalyzed.
& 2:
k 2.2-1
- 2. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL PRDTECTION CONDITIONS 3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2.2 Chemical 3.2 Chemical 2.2.1 Chlorine 3.2.1 Chlorine Objective Objective To limit the concentrations of total To assure that total residual chlorine residual chlorine in the discharge discharges are maintained within the consistent with those specified under Technical Specifications.
State and Federal Water Quality Stand-crds and Criteria as protecting.the designated water uses and aquatic life. . Specification Soecification j , While the plant is discharging cooling Automatic recording / control' equipment tower effluent, total residual chlorine (acceptable to the staff) shall be concentrations shall be limited to used to control dechierination. 0.1 mg/l or less at all times. The Should the automatic equipmerit fail, cooling tower effluent shall be a sample shall be taken from .the dis-dechlorinated as necessary to main ' charge canal immediatel tain the aforementioned limit. daily (except weekends)y, and then thereafter-until the automatic equipmentis returned to service, to. assure a total residual chlorine concentration of not more thcn 0.1 mg/.1.. S.amples shall be taken at, or prior to, the outfall into the Cedar River. Residual chlorine levels shall be detemined by the amperometric method. Bases Bases The limit on maximum total residual chlorine The chlorine monitoring program is concentration in the plant discharge is designed to provide a reliable record sufficient to accomplish the purpose of of chlorine concentratio'n in the chlorination and will assure that the discharge canal as a function of time discharge will not contribute to non- after chlorination has started and to complying water quality conditions in, assure that chlorine levels are main-the Cedar River in the vicinity of the tained within the limits of the plant. Technical Specifications. Amendment No. 55 ?
//- / 9-7 9 B-8
2.2-2 2.0 ENVIRONul?~IAL TROIICTICN 3.0 MONITORUiG F2 QUIA ENTS CC:QITIONS
, 2.2.2 Other*Che=icals 3. 2. 2 Other Che=icals Cbjective Ob i ec tiv e_ ,
, To specify significant a= cunts of To specify record keeping require-che=ical usage which result in =ents , f or che=icals. used at the N.EC effluent discharges to the river. site and to specify =enitoring re-
' quire =ent .
?
D Scecificatien Soecificatica
' Chemi'c bs' .which are 'used:y2 large > ' Appsopriate, receipt records :of all caa= titles at .theiplant ire: 11stcd '
che=Icals. bteught into .the ;plant vill be naintained. Reports of in: . Table' 2.2-1. - Alto listed are' '- che=icals which =ay'beiused;in's , sulphuric acid usage shall be in s=glier: quantities to:provi3'ei cen~-i accordance with Sectica 5.4 trol oi-water chemistry fe:certais. Chemical analyses of sanples taken sp.ehifi'_ c vater treat =ent problens. frc=&the..rf&cr are described in Subsec tion 4.1.1. The neut-alizing tank shall be sa p1Ad prior to dischargelo ensure pH is within State li=its':- 3ases > Bases No significant chemical discharges With~the exceptica of.chiciiEe and other than ch1Mine are =ade frc= sulph 67 ?e acid, en-sit'c , chemical the DAEC. An recunt of culphuric usage:is insignificant. ~4,11 sting acid is added to the circulating of extected' annual u'.: age of =inute water and sub:aquently discharged quantities of laboratory lche=icals as sulfates, but its i= pact is not is presehfe3 in Table 3.'541;cf the considered to be sign'.fican:. U2C.Entiron= ental. Re' port. 1 The neutralizing tank vill be pu=ced Since the other chemicals are used to theNiver at a =ax* - cf 100 gp=, c'ily in s=all quantities, it is censidere.d that the :che=ical will;- .qThis-discharge is diluted-with vell be3 ce=p-letely- reacted.with the g water;and. any blevdevn presient, object it is; intended to centrol., . and the enviren= ental .i= pact: ?s q Any significant effect in the river vill:ba ascertained through;the not; considered to be significant.. spet.ial study =cnitoring ~progra= detailed in Subsection 4.1.1. B-9
- 2. 2-3 '
Table 2.2-1 SOURCES OF ADDED CHEMICALS AND RESULTANT END PRODUCT CHEMICALS , Maximum Resulting
- Chemical Waste End End Product Added Annual Use Product Annual Mean Daily System SourceiChemical. .;Lbs. _ Chemical Lbs. Lbs.
- l. Makeup H SC., NaOH 182,000 'S0 182,000 500 2 4 Demineralizer '
. Circulating Liquid Chlorine 160,000 C1 158,000 433 Wa te r ' - -Chloramines 4,V00 5**
H SO 2 4 3,000,000 :50 ;7.,000 ,0% 20,000 4 i b; Circulating
* ~
Nalco'f7320 2,400 '*
-2!40'O 6.5 , Wate r . 'Organe -bromine .c. Circulating Halco i7348 14,600 x 14,600 40 Water Non ionic dispersant
- d. Circulating Nalco !7312 146,000
- 146!000 400
. Water Lignin-sulfunate
.e. Circulating Na'ico !345 or 190,000
- 190,00.0 530 1
Water. - Naico #7310 Organica-Phosphate 4
- f. Ci rc'ul-at-ing Nalco !71 2,900
- 2'l9'O'O 8
! Water- PolyGlycoT *
- g. Circuht?ng Nalco !M 2,500 2* 2,560 7 Water Sodium sulfite
~
- 3. Well Wa.ter Nalco #9-181 21,000
- 21',000 58
- System ~ Poly' Fn'osphat'e-
- 4. RHR Cocling Nalco V7320 400
- 400 1.1 System: Organo -bromi'ni i
I
- Waste end product not established
{ ** Maximum allowed per Envircnmental Technical Specifications l B-10 mig '7 - G73
l 4.1-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1 Biological 4.1.1 Aquatic objective l'. To continue routine water quality determination in the Cedar River in order to.id.entify any conditions which could result in environmental or water quality problems.
~
- 2. To conduct physical, chemical and biological studies in and adjacent to the discharge canal and to compare the results with similar studies above the intake. This will make it possible to determine any water quality changes occurring as the result of chemical additions or condenser passage end to identify any impact of the plant effluent on aquatic commun-ities adjacent to the discharge.
- 3. To identify and quantify organisms impinged on the intake screens and' entrained in the intake water in order to esti-mate the magnitude and~ effects of impingement and condenser passage on'the ecology of the Cedar River.
~
- 4. To verify ~the extent ~of the thermal plume.
- SeeEifications Simpling sites will be established in-the discharge canal'and at four locations in the Cedar River (Figure 4.1-1) : 1) upstream of the plant at the Lewis Access Bridge; 2) directly above the plant intake;
-3 } - Et a point to- be determined no more than 300' below the, plant dis-chprge; 4) ' adjacent to' Comp Farm about 1/2 mile below the' plant.
Deviations are permitted from the required sampling / analysis schedule if'- s~pecimens are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions , equipment malfunction or laboratory accidents. If due to equipment malfunction ev.e_ry effort shall be made to complete corrective action prior to the end of the next sampling period. All deviations frem the sampling / analysis schedule shall be described in the annual reports 4.1.'l.1 General Water Quality Analysis Amendment No. 55 B-ll
, 1
4.1-2 4.O ENVIRO:::G::TAL SUPAIILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4 .1.1 Soecification (Cont'd) A. Frecuency: Twice per month routinely and as necessary when l conditions warrant. 3 -Location : At all.four river sites and the discharge canal. Cr ParametwrC tor,bd measured: l'. D . o'. 7 '- Ch 'Ea'r'dness 13. Lignins & ta'nnen 2 .~. pli B. Total PO4 14..L.50I5
- 3. 9.
~
CO2 .On_h_o
,PO..,. 152.C6d
~
- 4. Tot'al Alkalinity 10. NO3 16. O. dor
- 5. CO3 AlkaliniYy 11. NH 4 + 17 Temperature
- 6. Total, gardnes's 12. de 18'. Turbi-dity
- 19. Color 4.1.1. 2 Co=clete- Water :Qua'lity'Analvsis:
A. , Frequency: Three times per year during spring, summer and falle
- 3. Location:' At all four river locations and the' discharge canal.
C. Parameters to be measured: All general water quality parameterg plus.
^1.
Cu 25 . Oft 6 9. ,- No2
- 2. Zn ;'6'.
Mn 10. Toti Fs61 ids-
- 3. Eg -7 . 7C1 1Y. - Pestididei in fish from..two sites,,abot
-4. Pb So4 and below plant!
-In addition, D.O. ,' ph .and alkalinity will be determine.d at"each site every four hours"over;a 24-hour. period. --
Amene.ent No. 55 ,
/b!b B-12
\
4.1-3 l l
)
4.O EINIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES i 4.1.1 Specification (cont'd) 4.1.l'3 Plankton. Studies-
-A . Frequency: Twice per_, month . rout.inely. and .as;nepessary ;when , '
conditions warrant. B. lL6 cation ~:~ Nt all"foui~ifv'er locations and the discharge cana1. - - C. Analyses to be made: Numbers and; kinds (to gepus whenever , possible) of organisms 'preidn't'.~
~'
~ 4 .-l .1 .71 5 B'eiithic LN$ctt6micica ii'smDlSEnfli'es _ I. A .I?r e q u e'n c'y ': 5e:dilanntidilf;' Tas iapailable. hB. Location: At all four r'iver' sit'es
- Analysis 4F Kinds (to genus wh'e'never possible) rand:.nn:abers of.
~
D. r
. organisms present will be determined. Sediment type will also be determined.
4..l.1.6 Periphyton A. Frequency: Three times per year during spring,. summer and fall,
~
- as av.ailable.
B. Location: Artificial substrates will be installed.at Site.2, above the plant intake, and at Site 3 , below the plant. C .. Analyses to be. mace:-:.Substrates will be removed after two weeks to one month. .The biomass and generic composition will be determined. _ Miendment flo. 55 B-13
4.1-4 4.0 ENVIRONENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1.1 Specification (Cont' d. ). 4.1.1.7 Fisheries Studies The present fisheries studies will be continued three times per year (spring, std:=er and fallPiri' consultation with the Iowa Conservation Con: mission. ' Sampling is carried out; at the DAEC 4ite _ and upstream in the : vicinity. of Lewis Access 3 Seinin'gi, baited hoop nets and electrochocking are utilized in collecting the fish which are then identified, weighed, and ' measured. Preliminary . age. andf growtl1 studies, stomach sample analysis.;and. pesticide residue determinations are carried out. 4.1.1.8 Entrainment
. Quarterly determinations of the species and biomass of organisms in the intake water will be determined by placing plankton nets at the intake structure.
The total volume of organisms subject to condenser passage may be calculated by determining the area of the plankton net, the velocity of the, water, and the volume of water entering the plant. This study vill co'ntinue for a minimum of two years. 4.1.1. 9 Impin geme_n_t, t Once a day, the number of fish found in the trash collection basket on the station's intake will be determin,ed by the station personnel. .These data
~
Ull be. forwarded n:enthlyutobio'.ti. ElecWic's consultant for analysis. An inventory of speci,e,s, numbers, and size. of all fish taken f rom the trash
~
collection baskets' on a given -day 0111 be conducted quarterlyv A report of
~
this, data and analysis will be st[bmitted to the staff 'as' detailed in sub-section 5.4. If excessive' nur3b'ers of'fihh are taken from the travelling screens, Iowa Electric's, consultant will be immediately notified and the cause' deterinined. ."AdditTonallst'udiiis'hn'd; corrective action'.will b'e? initiated as required." 4.1.1.10 Fish Bask'et Studies Live br>xes containing native fish-taken f rom the Cedar River;uill be placed' j in th'e 'rivef upstle'am~of"t'he'pl'ah~t intake and at the nouth of the discharge l canal. These studies will be conducted in conjunction with the su=mer quarterly studies.. Live, boxes pill:be lef t in place for a period of 48 hours. During this- time , the. fish will- be observed for evidences of distress and other errat.ic behaviour, and mortality rates in boxes above the plant and in the discharge . vill be . compared., - l Amendment No. 22 B-14 g g g $6
4.1-5 4.0 ENVIRONFENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIEE 4.1.1 Specification _ (Cont'd. ) 4.1.1.11 Themal Plume Mapping i l Temperature measurements in the river will be made during representative low l flow conditions (300-400 'cfs) 'to verify, the extent of ' the ther=al plu=e. lA. l report of these findings will be submitted to the staff upon completion. l l i I i i l Amendment tio. 22 B-15 fjl 2 6 El6
. 1-6 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.1.1 Bases (Cont'd)
The Final Environmental State =ent presented the Thermal Plu=e which is expected as e result of plant operation. The ceasurement of the thermal plume will ellow verification of this analysis. 4.1.2 Terrestrial Obj ective
'l. To deternine' the characteristics of the terrestrial plant and ani=al communities in the. vicinity of the DAEC following plant startup.
Comparison of the results of these determinations with preoperational studies will make it possible to assess the effects of the operation of the DAEC on the terrestrial ecology.
- 2. To determine significant ef fects of cooling tower operation on the plant cor= unities adjacent to the site by periodic visual inspectio'n of plant foliage downwind of the towers.
Specification The terrestrial monitoring program as reported in the DAEC Terrestrial Flora Study (August 1972) and Terrestrial Fauna Study (October 1972) will be repeated two years af ter comercial operation of the plant co=ences. A conthly visual inspection during the growing season (May through September) will be made of the vegetation on and around the site in the direction of pre-vailin'g winds to deternine any possible salt drif t damage. If symptoms of salt damage are apparent, samples of af fected and unaffected individ'uals of the same plant species will be photographed, sampled and unwashed samples analyzed for total salts. The results of these inspections will be reported as detailed in Section 5.4 This program will continue for a mini =um of two years. Bases The terrestrial flora and fauna studies established the baseline ecology prior to the operation of the DAEC. These studies will be repeated 'in order to document any significant effects of plant operation on the terrestrial environ =ent. Review of visual examination of plant folinge will docu=ent any significant effects of cooling tower operation on plant comunities adjacent to the ttation. Amendment No. 22 B-16 g g3
4.2-1 l 4.0 ESVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES 4.2 Physical 4.2.1 Noise Objective To ensure that noise levels from the coolin's towers do not become an annoyance to the nearest. neighbors to the DAEC, Specification If complaints are received that the noise from the cooling towers or-breakers are excessive, a nois'e survey will be conducted and an appro-priate plan of action submitted to the Staff. Bases The indoor noise levels at the nearest farm house have been calculated to correspond to a noise criteria (NC) level 30, which may prove annoying to the. occupants. The noise levels associated with breaker operation correspond to momentary sound pressure levels of 110 db. As these breakers will operate on the order of once per year, the impact will not be significant. If circuit breaker operation is fairly frequent, it may prove annoying. ErlL
5.1-1 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.1 Review and Audit The Iowa Electric Light and Power Co=pany will obtain the necessary expertise in environmental disciplines significant to the Duane Arnold Energy Center, to administer the environmental monitoring program. Administrative measures have been defined which provide ,that the Quality Assurance and Quality Contr.ol group assiga'ed the responsibility for pariodically checking, auditing, inspecting, or otherwise verifying that an ectivity has been correctly performed is independent of the individual or group directly responsible for performing the specific _ activity. Cor=ittees for review and audit other than quality assurance of plan operations' have been constituted and have the responsibilities and authorities as outlined balow and required by ANSI N18.7-1972, "Ad=inistrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants" and " Project Manager's Draft Guide for the Preparation of Environmental Technical Spe'cification for Nuclear Power Plants," dated.Jan-- uary 29,1973. 5.1.1 operations committee A co==ittee of technically qualified plant staff members has been appointed by the Chief Engineer ~to perform timely and continuing reviews of plant operations. The committee's activities shall be governed by a written charter which includes (1) specification of committee membership and designation of its chairman, (2) the administrative procedur.es by which it functions, including specification of a quorum, meeting frequency, maintenance 'of,, " records, and transmitting of its decisions, (3) its authority, and (4) its review responsibilities. The latter includes all new or revised plant proce-dures, proposed tests or experiments, proposed changes in plant syst' ems or equipment, observed violations of Plant or Environmental Technical Specifica-tions, abnormal oc~currences, proposed changes to the Plant or Environmental Technical Specifications, and any occurrenee of a safety limit being exceeded. J 5.1.2 Safety Co=mittee A committee of technically qualified persons has been appointed by the Vice President-Engineering to perform timely and continuing' audits of plant operations, including the Environmental Monitoring Program. The com=1,ttee's activities shall be governed by a written charter which includes: (1) specification of committee membership and designation of its chairman, (2) the administrative procedures by which it functions, including specification of a quorum, meeting frequency, maintenance of records, and transmittin,g of B-18
l l 5.1-2 i 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.1.2 Review and Audit (Con t' d. ) its decisions, (3) its authority, and (4) its review responsibilities. The latter includes all new or revised plant procedures, proposed tests or
. experiments, proposed changes in plant systems or equipment, obse rved violations of Plant or Environmental Technical Specifications, abnormal occurrences, proposed changes to the Plant or Environmental Technical Specifications, and any occurrence of a safety limit'being exceeded.
B-19
5.2-1 5.0 ADMIT ISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.2 Action to be taken in the Event of Violation of an Environ = ental Technical Specification A. Any Environ = ental Technical Specification (ETS) violation vill be reported i=cediately to the Chief Engineer and the Vice President-Generation and prorptly reviewed as specified in Sectica 5.1. B. As specified in Section 5.4.2, a separate report for each I!5
~
violation vill be prepared. This report will include an ~ evaluation of the cause of the occurrence, a record of the corrective a::ics ~ taken, and recommendations for appropriate action to prevent or reduce the prohability of a recurrence. C. Copies of all such reports vill be submitted to the Vice President-Generation and Safe ty Co=:ittee for review and approval of any recommendations. D. Iowa Electric will report the circumstances of any ETS. violations to the NRC as specified in Section 5.4.2. Amendment fio. 22 B-20 JJL 2 G E75
l 5.3-1 5.0 ADMINI3TuTIVE COE20L 5.3 Operating Procedures A. Detailed written procedures or instructicas, including applicable checkoff lists, vill be prepared, approved and adhered to for operation of all on site DAEC systems and components involved in carrying out the plant environmental 8 monitoring program of Section 2.0. Procedures vill include sampling, instrument calibrations, analysis and actions to be taken when limits are approached or exceet.ed. Calibration frequencias for , instruments .tged in performing the measurements required by the ETS will be included. A Quality Control Program will be followed for the calibration of instruments and sensois and records will be m'aintained. Testing frequency of alarms will be included. These frequen-cies vill be deter =ined from experience with similar instru-ments in similar environments and from manufacturers tech-nical manuals . B. Appropriate vr'itten procedures or instructions'util be. prepared, approved and adhered to for collection of samples indicated in Section 4.0. Applicable analytical procedures ES will be prepared, approved and adhered to for performing analysis of these samples collected. . C. All procedures described in 5.3.A above, and changes thereto, vill be reviewed as specified in Section 5.1 and approved by the Chief Engineer prior to implementation. Temporary changes g to procedures which do not change the intent of the original procedures may be =ade, provided such changes are approved by
- two members of the plant management staff. Such changes vill be documented, subsequently reviewed and approved on a ' timely basis.
D. .The analytical procedures described in 5.3.B above and changes thereto vill be reviewed by the management of the res pective organization which is responsible or contracted to perform the work. All collection procedures described in 5.3.3 above and changes thereto will be approved by the DAEC Chief Engineet , and Radiscion ?rotection Engineer. Temporar/ changes :o pro- 1h cedures which do nat change :he intent of the original proced-ures may be made provided such changes are approved by a super-visory person other than the person making the change. Such changes vill be documented, subsequently reviewed and approved on a timely basis. B-21 I
\
5.4-1 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.4 Plant Reporting Requirements 5.4.1 Semi-Annual Operating Reports Semi-annual operating reports covering the previous six months' operations shall be submitted within 60 days, af ter January 1 and July 1 of each year. The first such period should begin with the date of initial criticality. These reports shall include the following: A. Radioactive Effluent Rel, eases A statement of the quantities of radioactive effluents released from the plant, with' data summarized on a monthly basis following the format of Appendix A of USAEC Safety Guide 21 of January 1972:
- 1. Gaseous Effluents,
- a. Gross Radioactivity Releases
- 1. Total gross radioactivity (in curies),
primarily noble and activation gases,
- 11. Maximum grcss radioactivity release rate during any one-h 4 period.
iif. Total gross radioactivity (in curies), by nuclide released, based on represen-tative isotopic analyses performed. iv. Percent of ETS limit.
- b. Iodine Releases
- 1. Total io' dine radioactf'vity (in curies) by nuclide released, based on represen-tative isotopic analyses performed.
- 11. Percent of ETS limit for I-131 released.
- c. Particulate Releases
- 1. Total gross radioactivity (Beta, Ga==a) released (in curies) excluding background radioactivity.
ii. Gross alpha radioactivity released (in curies) excluding background radioactivity. _B-22_ l
5.4-2 S.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.4.1 Semi-Annual Operating Reports (Cont'd.) 111. Total gross radioactivity released (in curies) of nuclides with half-lives greater than eight days, iv. Percent of technical specification licit for particulate radioactivity with half-lives greater than eight days.
- 2. Liquid Effluents
- a. Total gross ra'dioactivity (Beta, Gam =a) released (in curies) excluding tritium and average concentration' released to the unrestricted area.
- b. The maximu= conc.entration of gross radioactivity (Beta, Gam =a) released to the unrestricted area (averaged over the period of release).
- c. Total tritium and total alpha radioactivity (in curies) released and average concentration released.
to the unrestricted area.
- d. Total dissolved noble gas radioactivity (in curies) and' average concentration released to the unrestrie-ted area.
- e. Total volume (in liters) of liquid effluent released.
- f. Total volu=e (in liters) of dilution water used. prior to release from the-restricted area,
- g. Total radioactivity (in curies) by nuclide released, based on representative isotopic analyses performed.
- h. Percent of ETS limit for total activity released.
- 8. Solid Radioactive Waste
- 1. The total amount of solid radioactive vaste packaged (in cubic feet).
B-23
5.4-3 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 5.4.1 Semi-Annual Operating Reports (Cont'd.)
- 2. The total estimated gross radioactivity (in curies) of packaged material.
- 3. Disposition of material including date and destination if shipped o_ffsite.
C. Annual Radiolegical Environmental Operating Report A report on the radio. logical environmental surveillance programs fo'r the previous 12 months.of operation shall be submitted to the Director of the Regional Inspection anu Enforcement Office (with a copy to Director of the Office of Euclear Reactor Regulation) as a separate document witbin 90 days after January 1 of each year. The~ period of the first report shall begin eith the date of initial criticality. The reports shall include summaries, interpretations, and statistical evaluation of the results of the radiological environmental surveillance activities for the report period, including a comparison with preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate) and previous environme'ntal surveil-lance reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environ =ent. If harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected by the monitoring, the licensee shall provide an analysis of the problem and a proposed course of action to alleviate the problem. Result's of all radiological environmental samples taken shall be summarized on an annual basis following the for=at of,T.able 5 4.1. In the event that some results are not available within the 90 day period, the report shall be submitted noting and explaining the reasons for the missing results. The missing data shall be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report. 5,. 4 . 2 Non-Routine Reports 5.4.2.'l Violations Notification of violations of an ETS should be made within 24 hours by telephone or telegraph to the Director of the Regional Inspection and Enforcement Office, followed by a written report within 10 days to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with a copy to the Director of the Regional Inspection and Enforcement Office. The written report and, to the extent possible, the prelininary telephone or telegraph report, shculd: (a) describe, analyze and evaluate safety implica-t ic.nu , (b) outline the measures taken to assure that the cause of the condition Amendment No. 22 B-24 ygg f
5.4-4 is determined, (c) indicate 'the, corrective action (including any significant l changes made to the procedures apd the q'uality assurance progran) taken to prevent repetition of the occurrence and to prevent similar occurrences involving similar components or systems, and (d) evaluate the safety implica-tions of the incident in light of the cumulative experience obtained from I the record of previous failures and malfunctions of similar syste=s and Components. The following conditions will be considered as violations of EIS unless , otherwise specified by a"particular specification. A'.' 'The occurrence of any condition--in violation of ,an ETS. B. Any.,.other conditi'ons that indicate a significant environmental impact. C '. Anomalous Measurements If a confirmed meast: red ' level of radioactivity in anf environmental medium exceeds ten-times the control station value, a.,vritten report shall be submitted to the Director of the Regional Inspection and. . . .. Enforceent Office (with a copy to Director of the Offi.ce..of Nuclear > i 2 Rea.ctor Regulation) within 10' days after confirmation.* f . This report shall.inciude an evaluation of any release. condition 0 environmental factors, or other aspects necessary to explain the. 1 anomalous result. D. Milk Pathway, Measurements
-If milk samples collected over a calendar quarter show average I-131 concentrations of 4.8 picoeuries per liter or greater, a written , report shall be submitted to the Director of the Regional Inspection and j . Enforcement 0ffice (with "a copy to Director of the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation) within 30 days. This report shall advise the NRC of the licensee's proposed action to ensure the plant related annual doses will be within the design objective of 15 mrem /yr to
, I the thyroid of any individual.
'l I.
*A confirmat ory reanalysis of the original, a duplicate or a new sample may be* desirable, as appropriate. The results of the confirmatory analysis i
shall be completed at the earliest time consistent with the analysis, but 4 in any case within 30 days. If the high value is real, .the report to the j NRC shall be submitted. Amendment No. 22 Jul. t 6 B76 B-25 w , ,,-w-, -,,,~a-, w---,- n,-e.---n-,-- -n - - - - - - , , - - -,-,w,-w--.--w--, w -ea ,-e- w w .- < -na
1 l S.4-5 I 5.4.2.2 Changes
, 1. When a change to the plant (that af fects the environmental i= pact evaluation contained in the Environmental Report and the Environ-mental Statecent) or to the environcental conitoring procedures or equipment is planned, a report of the change vill be submitted to the NRC for informatioh prior to implementation of the change.
This is not intended to preclude making changes on short notice that are significant in t'erms of decreasing adverse enviro = ental impact, etc. However, these changes vill be procptly reported. 2 Changes or additions to ' permits and certificates required 'by Tederal', State, local and regional authorities, for the protection of, the. environment, will- be, reported. When the required changes are submitted to the concerned agency for approval, they vi11 also be submitted to the Director of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,' USNRC, for information. The report will include an evaluation of the impact of the change. 4
- 3. Request for changes in ETS will be submitted to the Director of Site j Safety and Environmental Analysis, Office of Nuclear . Reactor
- Regulation, USNRC, ..for prior review and authorization. The' request will include an evaluation of the i= pact of the change.
4 t i i 1 4 .i 5 Amendment No. 22 l d@. g s 1976 B-26
- , . . , -- - -,_ . , , ._m
., ._-r- ------ - - . - . , .-
, . ---e--.- ,, . --._.%
i 5.5-1
,5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE C0hTROL
!5.5 Records Retention I A. All records and logs . relative to the following areas shall be j retained for at least 5 years: 1
- 1. Records of ' abnormal occurrences.
; 2. Records ofLperiodic checks, inspections and cali-brations performed to verify that surveillance requirements are being met.
4
- 3. Records of radioactive shipments.
B. All records relative to the following areas shall be retained for
- the life of the plant:
- 1. Records of environmental monitoring surveys.
~
- 2. Records' of radi;oactivity in liquid and gaseous ef fluents relea_ sed to the environment.
- 3. Minutes of' meetings of the operations committee and the Safety Cocnitte'e.
1 1 1 4' l B-27
am ,-a . .n _. 2 - & .- . --- a - - i 4 a f 1 i APPENDIX C--NPDES PERMIT 4 1
}.
't a f 8 i J b
. - - _ . . . _ _ _ _ , . _ . . _ ._ _ . , - . , _ _ _ , ,- . _.. --,,___ , . _ . . ._.. ... .-.. --- . . _ . ..m. ,_- _ ,, _ . ,-.,.. __. _
l r<e .iis N. IA 0003727 An.i ii.... N.;. IA.070 OX6 2 000035 IA 070 OX6 3 007005 l AUT!iORIZATION TO DISC!!ARGE IINDE!! TIIE NATION AL POLI,UTANT DISCilARGE. ELIMINATION SYSTEM in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Cdntrol Act, as amended. (33, U.S.C.11.51 et. seq;.the "Act"), Iowa Ele,ctric Ligh't! y Power Compahy i Cedar Rapids, Iowa a is auth'orized to dischargh frorE a facility located at Palo/, Iowa (D'uane Arnold . Energy Center) to receiving \vaters named Cedar River in decorrlance *with effluen't limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Pa'rts I, II, and III heicof. This permit shall become bifective on February 14,,1977, un1'ess an adjudicatory h== ' 3 7 is requested pursuan't to 40 CFR 125.36 within 10 days following receipt of this y Tlus permit and the authorization to' discharge shall expire at midnight, June 30, 1981.
~
S:gned this 14 , day of January, 1977
!A & V lb f Charles V. Wright Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Pr0tection Agencv '
Reguan Vil P A F-.e. 33 20.J (10-73) C-1
1 A. EFFLUENT TMITATION$ AND MONITORING RE.QUIREME6TS During the period beginning Fe'brtiary 14, 1977 and lasting through June 30, 19'81 the permittee is authorized to dischargo from outfall(s) serial number (s)001 (cooling tower blowdown)
' Such discharges slinil bo limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Cheracteristi::. Dischere I. mitations Monitoring Requirements kg/ day (lbs/ day) Other Units (Specify) ,. .
, Measurement Sampic Daily Avg Daily Max ' Daily Avg Daily Max ' Frequency Type N/A- N.lA 26,6,I0(7.04) t 27;'0_46(9.79) continuous --
Flow-m /3 Day (MGD) Temperature Winter (Nov. 15 - grab April 1) N/A N/A 750F 850F daily Sucmcr (April 12 -- N/A N/A 850F 95 F daily grab n Nov. 14) b Free available weekly grab chlorine N/A N/A -0.2 mg/l 0.5 mg'/1 Polychlorinated biphenol compounds N/A N/A No discharge -- The pli shall not be less than . 6'.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard unit's and shall be monitored veckly, grab.
~
;? .g There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. !p
5 x N .- Samples taken in c6nipliance with the monitoring requirements s ccified'above shall be taken at the following location (s): At 'or prior to' the point of discharge to the receiving spream. N ,. o~ g c,q,c ,I dohag Ela/de / 0.L 8 y c. e
. is'L ouLL a
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
- :During the period beginning February 14,1977 and lasting tlirough June 30,'1981 the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number (s) 002 (Sewage treatment facility) i Such discharges shall be lim,Ited and monitored by Nic permittee as specific [below:
Effluent Characteristic , Discharge Limitations . . Afonitoring Requirements l kg/ day (lbs/ day) Other Units (Specify) ! Measurement Sampic
' Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max . Frequency- Type Flow--m 3/ Day (MGD) liLA N/A 75(0.02) 113(0103) Daily --
l BOD 5 2.3 (5) 3.4 (7.5) '30 mg/l 45 mg/l Monthly Grab i Total Suspended Solids 2.3(5) 3.4 (7.5) 30 mg/l 45 mg/l Monthly Grab o The pH shall not be less than # 6.0 ' standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard unit's and shall be monitored ucekly, grab. ,, , 3 i' > There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. E-zu d
- Samples taIken in conipliance with the monitoring requirements specified'above shall be taken at the followinglocation(s)
s p .,, At or prior to the point.of discharge to the receiving stream. aj 8 0 ti b
. - - - . .. _. - . .. . - .. . ~ . . . -
i PARTI T Pa:e 4 of 10 P:rmit No. j D. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
, 1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for
! - discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
~
Not applicable at this time. 4 J I 4 4 1 l 2. No later t,,han 14 calendar' days follow'ing a date identified in the above schedule hf compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or,'in"thicase of specific actions'being required by identified dates, a written notice of compli::nce or ! noncernplicnce. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled i ' requirement. - j i 4 I 4 i i i C ** l
. . - - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ ~ - . - - . - - --., -_-- . . _ - . . - - - - . _ - . . .
PART I Page 5 of 10 Permit No. C.' MONITORING AMD P2 PORTING
- 1. Representative Sampling samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volune and nature of the monitored discharge.
- 2. Reporting Monitoring results obtained during the previous 3 months shall b,e sur.marized for each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (0:e No.158-R0073) , post =tarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting period. ' The first report shall be-sub=itted for. the period ending March 31, 1977 . Duplicate signed copies of these,
'and all other recorts recuired herein, shall be submitted to the Regional Adninistrator and the State at the folleding addresses:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Attn: ,,Per: nit & Compliance Branch 1735 Baltimore, Roon 249 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Telephone: 816-374-5955 Iowa Depart =ent of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 3326 3920 Delaware Des'Moines, Iowa ~ 50316' Telephone: 862-265-8134
- 3. Definitions
- a. The " daily average" discharge means the total discharge by weight" during a calendar month divided by the nu:nber of days in the month that the production or cc::nerical facility was j operating'. Where less than" daily sampling is required by this l permit, the daily average discharge shall be determined by the su==ation of all the measured daily discharges by weight divided by the nu=her of da9s during the calendar month when the sneasurements were made.
- b. The " daily maximum" discharge means the total discharge by weight during any calendar day.
C-5
Page 6 of 10 Permit No.
- 4. Test Procedures Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Act, under which such procedures may be required.
- 5. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information:
- a. The exact place, date, and timo of sampling;
- b. The dates the analyses were perfomed;
- c. The" person (s) who performed the analyses;.
- d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
- e. The results of all reqsixed analyscs.
- 6. Additioryal Honitoring by Permittet If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location ('s) designa'ted herein core frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical methods as specified above, the renults
.of such monitoring s, hall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Discharge 1!cnitoring Report Form (CMB 158-R0073). Such increased frequency shall also he indicated.
- 7. Records Retention All records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by this parmit including all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of instrumentation and recordings from conti*nuous monitoring instrumentation shall be ~ retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Regional Adiinistrator or .the State water pollution control agency.
l l C-6
PART il em 7 or 10 reunii No. I A 0003727 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS i
- 1. Change in Discharge All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent 'with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit. Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications which will iesult in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants must be reported by submission of a new NPDES application or, if such changes will not violate t% effluent limitations,specified in this permit, by notice to the permit issuing authority of such changes. Following such notice, the permit may be modified to specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited.
- 2. Noncomplicnce Notification If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or willlie unable to complyivith i any daily maxir'num effluent limitation specified in this permit, the permittee shall provide the. Regional Administrator and the State with the following information, in writing, within five (5) days of becoming aware of such condition:
- a. A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance;and b.' The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or. if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge.
a 3. Facilities Operation ! The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.
- 4. Adverse' Impact The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize a'ni adverse impact to navigable waters resulting from 'noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this
, permit, Inchtding such accelerated or additional monito' ring as necessary to determine the natur.e and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
- 5. Bypassing Iny diversion from or, bypass of facilities necessary to maintain compliance with the
- terms and conditions of this permit is prohibited, except (i) where unavoidable to prevent i lois of life on severe property damage, or (ii) where execssive storm drainnge or-runoff would d; image any. facilities necessary for compliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this permit. The permittee shall promptly notify the Tlegional ,
Administrator and the State in writing of each such diversion or bypass. i i C-J
PART ll Pass 8 or 10 Permh No. IA 0003727
- 6. EcmovedSuba!ances
] Solids,. sludge ., Eller backwash, or other pollutants removed in Se, course of treatment or control.of wastawaters shal'. be disposed of in a manner such es to prevent any pollutant froia such matdrials f. rom entering navigable waters.
- 7. PowerFailures.
.In order ter maintain co'ripl,iance with the efnuent limitations and prohibitions of this permit, the permittee sliali either:
- a. In accordance with the Schedule of Compliance contained in Part I, pr' ovide 'an altemative power source', sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities; .
or,if such altemative poweE source is not in existence, and no date for its implementation appears in Part I,
- b. Halt, reduce or othenvis'e control production and/or all discharges upon the reduction, lor,s, or failure of the primary source of power to the wastewater control facilities.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
- 1. Ri:ht of Entry The permittee shall nilow. the head of the State water ~ pollution control agency, the Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized representatives, upon the presentation of ciedentials:
- a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an efBuent source is located or in which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;and
~
- b. At reasonable times to have acccis to and copy any records requir'e d to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; to inspect any monitoring equipment or m'onitoring method required in this permit; and to sainple any discharge of pollutants.
l
- 2. Transfer of Ownership or Control In the event of any change in control or ownership of facilities from which the authoris'ed j discharges emanate, the permittee shall notify the succeeding ovmer or controller of the l existence of this permit by letter, a copy of which shall be fonvarded to the Regional l Administrator and the State water pollution control agency.
- 3. Avcitability ofReports Except for data deterrnined to be confidential under Section 008 of the Act, all reporta prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit sha*1 he available for public C-8 w g
PAllT !! hse. 9- or' 10 Permli no. A 0003727 i ! inspcetion at.tha. offices of the- State water pollutien' control agency and the Itegional l Adminisentor. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered cc,nfidential. Knowl.,;ly ma!dng any false statement on any such report may result in the imporition of criminal penalties as provided for li1 Section 309 of the Act.
- 4. 'PermitModification.
After notice add opportunity for a h' caring, this permit rnay be' modified, sugiended, or revoked in', whole or in pcrt during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the i following:-
~
- e. Violation of any terms or conditions'of thisscrmit;
- b. Obtaining this' permit by misrepresentation or failure.to disslose fully all rel'cyant facts; or c., A change in any condition that requires eith~cr a temponry or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge.- ,
j 5. Toxic Pollutants Notwithstanding'Part II, B-4 ab'ove, if a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including-any schedule of compliance specified'in. such effluent ~;tandard or prohibition) is established under Section 007(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is presentin the_ clischarge and such standard or. prohibition is more stringent than anylimitation ict such pollutant in this perinit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent' standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified.
- 6. Civiland CriininalLiability' Except as provided in permit conditions 'on " Bypassing" (Part II, A-5) and " Power Failure'"
s (Part II, A-7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee-from civil or criminal penalties for nonecmp' dance.
- 7. Oil and Hciardous Su bstance Lickility Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permitte'e 'fiom' any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the, ,
permittee is or'may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
- 8. State Laws Nothing in this permit shell be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from cny responsibilities, liabilities, or penaltics established pursuant to any applicable State law or reguir. tion under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Act. '
j. c-9
. _ _ _ ... _ ..___ . _ _ , _ _ , _ . _ . . _ __ ._ m_, . _ . . .. _ _ _ . . .
mni n P,:e 10 or 10 Fami No. IA 0C03727
- 9. Proper:y Rigitis The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or per:,on.-d property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does'it authorize eny injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringernent of Federal, State or locallaws or regulatiens.
- 10. Severapility Tne provi:icns of this permit are sevenue, and if any pro.isica cf this permit, or the applicadon of any provision of this permit to any circucutance, is held invalid, the app!! cation of such provision to cther circumst:nces, end the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
PART III OTHER REQUIREMENTS 316(b) Studv It is recognized that Iowa Electric I.ic,ht and Pover. Co pany has collecte<' extensive data concerning impingement effects of its Duane Arnold Energ-- Center facility. To co= ply trith the requirements of Section 316(b) of PL 92-500, the compcay shall submit to the Regional Administrator within 120 days of the effective date of this discharge authorizatio'n, a writte.= report which discusses i=pinge=ent effects of this plant for a 12 mont*c
' perio'd i: mediately prior to the issuance of this permit. Devalopment of the report shall be guided by " Development Docunent for Best Technology Avcilable #cr the location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cool'- g Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental I= pact" 2.s -
published by EPA in April 1976. This report shall be evaluated uith regard to Section 316(b) of the Act. As a result of this evaluation, the Regional Ad2inistrator may modify the per=dt in accordance with Part IIB 4 to establish an implementation schedule to insure co=pliance with Section 316(b) . C-10
APPENDIX D--LIST OF SCIENTIFIC AND COFSON NAMES OF FISEES COLLECTED NEAR DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER
NRC-AS-TF . 6 / APPD .1 7/15/81 Table D-1. List of Scientific and Common Nxnes of Fishes Collected Near Duane Arnold Energy Center Family and Scientific Name Common Name Clupeidae (herrings) Dorosoma cepedianum Gi;zard shad Esocidae (pikes) Esox lucius !brthera pi ke Cyprinidae (minnows and carps) Cyprinus carpio Carp Hyboanathus hankinsoni Brassy minnow Hyboosis bicuttata Hornyhead chub Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner N. cornutus Coenon shine r
- 5. dscsalis Bignouth shiner N. rubellus Ro syf ac e shiner N. sinus Bluntnose shiner
- 5. spilopterus Spotfin shiner
- 5. stramineus Sand shiner
- 5. whipplei Steelcolor shiner Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow Pb promelas Fathead minnow P. vigilax Bullhead minnow -
Semotilus atremaculatus Creek chub Catostomidae (suckers) Carpiedes carpio River carpsucker C. cyprinus Quillback CI. velifer Highfin carpsucker Catostomus com=ersoni White sucker Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth buffalo Moxostoma anisurum Silver redhorse M. breviceps Shorthead redhor se M. erythrurum Golden redhorse
!!. macrolepidotum Northern redhorse Ictaluridae (freshwater catfishes)
Ictalurus punctatus Channel cat fish Ictalurus sp. Bullheed v Polydictis olivaris Flathead cat fish Serranidae (sea basses) Roccus chrysops White bass Cen t rarchid a e (sunfishes) Lepomis cyane11us Creen sunfish L. . humulis Orangespot ted sun fish D-1
1 1 NRC-AS-TF.6/APPD.2 7/15/81 Table D-1. List of Scientific and Common Names of Fishes Collected Near Duane Arnold Energy Center (Continued, Page 2 of 2) l L. macrochirus Bluegill Tiicropterus dolomieui Smallmouth bass M. salmoides Largemouth bass Pomoxis annularis k'hite crappie P. nigromaculatus Black crappie Percidae (perches) Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter Stizostedion vitreum Walle yr. 1 e f f D-2
au 335 [,f,a U S. NUCLE AR REGut ATORY COMMISSION BIBLIOGRAPHIC D ATA SHEET NUREG/CR-2337, Vol. 3
- 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 44od Vovv w N o., e rwpropr.a re) 2. fLes,e o ett Aquatic Power Stat It,Ionsacts from Operation of Three Midwestern Nuclear Duane Arnold Energy Center, Unit No. 1 3 RE CIPLE NT S ACCESSloN NO Environmental Appraisal Report 7 A U T HO R (S)
- 5. DATE REPORT CoMPLE TED Stephen P. Berkowitz von m lveaa Au gu s t 1981 9 PE RFCRMING CRGAN12ATION N AME AND M AILING ADORESS Ita< +or 2 0 Cooel DATE Ar Oh .SSUED Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. *N T
- lveaa P.O. Box ESE November 1981 Gainesville, Florida 32601 6 /L'* * ****3 8 (Leave bank)
- 12. SPONSORING ORG ANIZ ATION N AYE AND V AILING ADDRESS t/ac%or l# Cooel Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation il CONTR ACT NO U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 F H B6854
- 13. TY PE OF REPORT PE aioD Cov E at o Itac4py, ca ys;
!5. SUPPLEVENTARY NOTES 14 Itene ural 16 AESTR ACT '200 ==oros or /essi Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) is located on the west bank of the Cedar River in Linn County, Iowa. The station utilizes a boiling-water reactor and steam turbine generator to produce 569 MW (net) of electrical power. Forced-draf t evaporative cooling towers are used to dissipate waste heat. The closed-cycle cooling system uses a net volume of 7.000 gallons per minute (gpm) of Cedar River water. An average of 4,000 gpm is discharged into the river. It does not appear that any major, long-term changes in poi .11ations of phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, or fish have occurred as the result of station operations. The blowdown discharge from DAEC does not stretch across the width of the Cedar River, and therefore does not form a barrier to fish movement. There were indications that' carp and carpsuckers may concentrate near the discharge during the fall. It appears that only a small f raction of Cedar River fish eggs and larvae is entrained by DAEC. An average of 402 fish per year was impinged by DAEC f rom 1975 to 1980.
17 <E Y t.OR DS AND DoCUVE NT AN ALYSiS 17a O[ $C hip T O a 5 nuclear generating station, environmental appr.tisal, Imp i ng,emen t , en t ra inmen t , cooling towers 17e. ICE NTIFiE RS OPEN-EN DE O TE R* S 18 AV ail ABILITY STATEVENT 19 $5 CURITY CL ASS f 7ms ecorrt 21 NO CF P AGE S tb 1nemifind Unlimited :o gcgagYggSSd'#"# 22 " s 'Ct aC ,cav 22s a ni 1M1 361-297/1441 1-3 M @E% MENT PAINTING OFriCE
UNITED StoTES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COwutSSION f ] W ASHINGTON. O. C. 20555 potraGa amo e s as raio U s huCLE am agGuLaTony OFFICI AL SUSINESS PEN ALTY FOR PRfV ATE USE. $300 couusssion V L J
. cb n Je u L b . o u > <> <
05 '.,.i A3V J , C U t ' .I [ L . ', I n ! '. l (( S F PjF C 1, e; . . .,. , . - t bY) t . - .$ Y ,1 rI h s) L% 1 I l f i
]
i l 1 1 1 l}}